Incidental Prostatic Adenocarcinomas and Putative Premalignant Lesions in TURP Specimens Collected Before and After the Introduction of Prostrate-Specific Antigen Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for the detection of prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCA), there has been an increase in the incidence of stage T1c PCA. The purpose of this study was to compare the frequency of incidental PCA found in transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) specimens for a 14-month period during 1989-1990 (before PSA screening was available) with the incidence of PCA for a 32-month period during 1997-1999 (after PSA screening became available). DESIGN: Consecutive TURP specimens from the 2 time periods were reviewed to identify incidental PCA, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), and atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH). Cases of TURP for palliative treatment of known advanced PCA were excluded from the study. All TURP specimens were fixed in 10% buffered formalin and were processed according to the same protocol. RESULTS: We reviewed 533 and 449 TURP specimens for the time periods 1989-1990 and 1997-1999, respectively. Comparison of the results for these 2 time periods revealed that the combined prevalence of T1a and T1b PCA decreased over time from 12.9% to 8.0% (P =.06) with the introduction of PSA screening. A new group of T1c PCA was established in the post-PSA screening period of 1997-1999. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidences of T1a PCA, PIN, and AAH in TURP specimens for the 2 time periods. CONCLUSION: The decreased incidence of T1b PCA in TURP specimens for the 1997-1999 period represents a shift in PCA staging. Some PCAs previously staged as T1b are now staged as T2 carcinomas, as a result of PSA screening and earlier clinical detection. The introduction of PSA screening has had no influence on the incidence of T1a PCA, PIN, or AAH in TURP specimens.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".