MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470676101 · doi:10.1111/bju.13570

Primary Gleason pattern upgrading in contemporary patients with D'Amico low‐risk prostate cancer: implications for future biomarkers and imaging modalities

2016· article· en· W2470676101 on OpenAlexaff
Sami‐Ramzi Leyh‐Bannurah, Hiba Abou‐Haidar, Paolo Dell’Oglio, Jonas Schiffmann, Zhe Tian, Hans Heinzer, Hartwig Huland, Markus Graefen, Lars Budäus, Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstatectomyLogistic regressionCancerOncologyProstateGynecologyStage (stratigraphy)Prostate-specific antigenInternal medicineUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To retrospectively assess the rate of high‐grade primary Gleason upgrading ( HGPGU ) to primary Gleason pattern 4 or 5 in a contemporary cohort of patients with D'Amico low‐risk prostate cancer including those who fulfilled Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance ( PRIAS ) criteria, and to develop a tool for HGPGU prediction. HGPGU is a contraindication in most active surveillance ( AS ) and focal therapy protocols. Patients and Methods In all, 10 616 patients with localised prostate cancer were treated at a high‐volume European tertiary care centre from 2010 to 2015 with radical prostatectomy. Analyses were restricted to 1 819 patients with D'Amico low‐risk prostate cancer (17.1%) with prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) levels of <10.0 ng/mL, cT 1c– cT 2a and Gleason score ≤6, and were repeated within 772 of the men (7.3%) who fulfilled the PRIAS criteria for AS ( PSA level of ≤10 ng/mL, T1c–T2, Gleason score ≤6, PSA density ( PSAD ) of <0.2 ng/mL 2 , ≤2 positive cores). Uni‐ and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted, testing predictors of HGPGU . The final logistic regression model was based on the most informative variables. Results There was HGPGU in 88 (4.8%) patients with D'Amico low‐risk prostate cancer and in 32 (4.1%) of the subgroup who were PRIAS eligible. Multivariable analysis predicting HGPGU for the patients with D'Amico low‐risk yielded three independent predictors: age, PSAD , and clinical tumour stage ( P = 0.008, P = 0.005 and P = 0.021, respectively). Within the same patients, the model using all vs the most informative variables resulted in area under the curves ( AUC s) of 69.2% and 68.3%, respectively. Multivariable analysis of those who were PRIAS eligible, yielded age and number of positive cores as independent predictors of HGPGU ( P = 0.002 and P = 0.049, respectively; AUC 64.9%). Conclusions The low accuracy (invariably <70%) for HGPGU prediction in both patients with D'Amico low‐risk prostate cancer and PRIAS eligibility indicates that these variables have poor predictive ability in contemporary patients. Despite HGPGU being a rare phenomenon, it may have life threatening implications and consequently alternatives such as biomarkers, genetic markers, or imaging modalities at re‐biopsy are needed.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207