Oncologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the active surveillance era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examine the oncologic outcomes of men with low, intermediate and high preoperative risk for prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy prior to and during the active surveillance era. METHODS: We analyzed records from patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our Canadian tertiary care facility from 2000 to 2012. Patients were stratified by D'Amico preoperative risk category and by year of treatment. Biochemical recurrence-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We included 2643 consecutive patients in our analysis. The proportion of men with low-risk disease undergoing radical prostatectomy decreased from 2007 onwards coincident with the implementation of an active surveillance strategy in our institution. Men with low-risk and high-risk disease showed significantly worse biochemical outcomes from 2007 to 2012 compared to 2000 to 2006 (p < 0.05), while men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer showed no significant differences (p = 0.27). Within the low-risk cohort, the later treatment group displayed significantly lower age, pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and tumour volume and significantly higher testosterone and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: The time period corresponding with the implementation of active surveillance at our institution corresponded with significant deterioration of biochemical outcomes in the low- and high-risk groups. This suggests that the men with most favourable disease deferred treatment, whereas men with worse preoperative disease characteristics were increasingly treated with radical prostatectomy in the past 6 years perhaps to their benefit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".