MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The PROFILE Feasibility Study: Targeted Screening of Men With a Family History of Prostate Cancer

2016· article· en· W2345972868 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elena Castro, Christos Mikropoulos, Elizabeth Bancroft, Tokhir Dadaev, Chee Goh, Natalie Taylor, Edward J. Saunders, Nigel Borley, Diana Keating, Elizabeth Page, Sibel Saya, Stephen Hazell, Naomi Livni, Nandita M. deSouza, David E. Neal, Freddie C. Hamdy, Pardeep Kumar, Antonis C. Antoniou, Zsofia Kote‐Jarai, Rosalind A. Eeles

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Cancer InstituteOvarian Cancer Research FundNational Institutes of HealthCancer Research UKAmerican Society of Clinical OncologyNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustBreast Cancer Research FoundationU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerOncologyProstate cancer screeningFamily historyInternal medicineProstate-specific antigenLogistic regressionPopulationSingle-nucleotide polymorphismProstateGynecologyCancerGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A better assessment of individualized prostate cancer (PrCa) risk is needed to improve screening. The use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level for screening in the general population has limitations and is not currently advocated. Approximately 100 common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been identified that are associated with the risk of developing PrCa. The PROFILE pilot study explored the feasibility of using SNP profiling in men with a family history (FH) of PrCa to investigate the probability of detecting PrCa at prostate biopsy (PB). The primary aim of this pilot study was to determine the safety and feasibility of PrCa screening using transrectal ultrasound-guided PB with or without diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) in men with a FH. A secondary aim was to evaluate the potential use of SNP profiling as a screening tool in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 men aged 40-69 years with a FH of PrCa underwent PB, regardless of their baseline PSA level. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were calculated for each participant using 71 common PrCa susceptibility alleles. We treated the disease outcome at PB as the outcome variable and evaluated its associations with the PRS, PSA level, and DW-MRI findings using univariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 100 men, 25 were diagnosed with PrCa, of whom 12 (48%) had clinically significant disease. Four adverse events occurred and no deaths. The PSA level and age at study entry were associated with PrCa at PB (p = .00037 and p = .00004, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results of the present pilot study have demonstrated that PB is a feasible and safe method of PrCa screening in men with a FH, with a high proportion of PrCa identified requiring radical treatment. It is feasible to collect data on PrCa-risk SNPs to evaluate their combined effect as a potential screening tool. A larger prospective study powered to detect statistical associations is in progress. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Prostate biopsy is a feasible and safe approach to prostate cancer screening in men with a family history and detects a high proportion of prostate cancer that needs radical treatment. Calculating a polygenic risk score using prostate cancer risk single nucleotide polymorphisms could be a potential future screening tool for prostate cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207