Histological subtypes of prostatic cancer: a comparative survival study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Variant histological subtypes of prostatic cancer occur uncommonly and are associated with poor survival, as has been ascertained through limited series and case reports. Here a population-based analysis of prostatic cancer is provided, to better analyze the survival behavior of these subtypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American SEER registry was used to review prostatic cancer diagnosed from 1988 to 2003, classified according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. Kaplan-Meier and proportional hazards analyses were performed on adenocarcinomas and five infrequent variant subtypes to determine their overall survival behavior, allowing corrections for follow up inequity, age, stage, histological grade, and year of diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 455,296 cases of prostatic cancer were reviewed, of which over 99% were conventional adenocarcinomas. The remaining variants studied included ductal carcinomas (0.141%), mucinous adenocarcinomas (0.103%), small cell carcinomas (0.056%), carcinosaromas (0.07%) and embryonal carcinosarcomas (0.06%). With age, stage and grade effects were corrected for in the multivariate analysis, conventional adenocarcinomas, mucinous adenocarcinomas and ductal carcinomas exhibited similar survival behavior. Small cell carcinomas and carcinosarcomas exhibited poor survival, even with correction. The embryonal variant of carcinosarcoma affected pediatric patients and had an overall survival similar to conventional prostatic cancer. Ductal carcinomas, small cell carcinomas and both types of carcinosarcoma tended to present with metastases more frequently than conventional disease. CONCLUSIONS: Prostatic cancer subtype can have a major bearing on overall survival and likely reflects intrinsic differences in biological behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".