Secondary Colonic Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate Histologically Mimicking Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the clinical presentation and pathological features of secondary colonic adenocarcinoma of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six cases of colonic adenocarcinoma extending into the prostate were retrieved from the surgical pathology and autopsy files of the period 1985-1999. Immunostaining for prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP), prostate specific antigen (PSA), cytokeratin 7 (CK7), cytokeratin 20 (CK20) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was carried out in all cases. Clinical charts were also reviewed. RESULTS: Secondary colonic carcinoma spread into the prostatic stroma and along the prostatic ducts. In all four surgical cases, patients with a known history of rectal carcinoma presented with symptoms of urinary obstruction after 12 to 36 months of being free of recurrent or metastatic disease. In three surgical cases the secondary carcinoma involved the prostatic urethra in a form mimicking endometrioid carcinoma, which led to an incorrect diagnosis of prostatic endometrioid carcinoma in one case. The tumor cells were immunoreactive to CK20 and CEA and not reactive to CK7, PAP and PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Colonic carcinoma involving the prostate may mimic prostatic duct carcinoma due to the ductal and urethral involvement. Using a panel of immunostaining and clinical history is helpful in the differential diagnosis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".