Extraprostatic biopsy improves the staging of localized prostate cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role and safety of biopsy of the seminal vesicles and neurovascular bundles in determining the pathologic stage of prostatic carcinoma. METHODS: Eighty-one consecutive patients were enrolled in a comprehensive cryosurgical biopsy protocol that included sextant intraprostatic plus extraprostatic biopsy. The pathologic stage, determined after biopsy, was compared with the clinical stage, determined by digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonographic (TRUS) evaluation. As well, complication rates for these patients were compared with rates for a separate group that underwent sextant intraprostatic biopsy alone. RESULTS: Of the 81 patients, 61 (75%) were confirmed to have cancer by biopsy. None of these patients was considered to have extraprostatic extension by clinical evaluation (DRE and TRUS), but 16 of 61 (26%) were identified to have extraprostatic cancer in the seminal vesicles (8 of 61, 13%) or in the neurovascular bundles (8 of 61, 13%) by extraprostatic biopsy. There was no significant difference in the complication rates between sextant intraprostatic biopsy and sextant intraprostatic plus extraprostatic biopsy (p>0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Extraprostatic biopsy identifies extension of carcinoma in a large proportion of patients in whom clinical evaluation by DRE and TRUS indicates organ-confined disease. Extraprostatic biopsy is therefore warranted as routine evaluation before surgery in order to correctly stage prostatic carcinoma and select appropriate therapy.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".