Prognostic value of Caveolin‐1 in patients treated with radical prostatectomy: a multicentric validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate Caveolin-1 as an independent prognostic marker of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Caveolin-1 expression was evaluated by immunochemistry on a tissue microarray in 3 117 patients treated with RP for prostate cancer at five institutions. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed the association of Caveolin-1 status with BCR. Harrell's c-index quantified prognostic accuracy. RESULTS: Caveolin-1 was overexpressed in 644 (20.6%) patients and was associated with higher pathological Gleason sum (P = 0.002) and lymph node metastases (P = 0.05). Within a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 38 (21-66) months, 617 (19.8%) patients experienced BCR. Patients with overexpression of Caveolin-1 had worse BCR-free survival than those with normal expression (log-rank test, P = 0.004). Caveolin-1 was an independent predictor of BCR in multivariable analyses that adjusted for the effects of standard clinicopathological features (hazard ratio 1.21, P = 0.037). Addition of Caveolin-1 in a model for prediction of BCR based on these standard prognosticators did not significantly improve the predictive accuracy of the model. In subgroup analyses, Caveolin-1 was associated with BCR in patients with favourable pathological features (pT2pN0 and Gleason score = 6; P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that overexpression of Caveolin-1 is associated with adverse pathological features in prostate cancer and independently predicts BCR after RP, especially in patients with favourable pathological features. However, it did not add prognostically relevant information to established predictors of BCR, limiting its use in clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".