A review of radical prostatectomy outcomes in active surveillance patients—The Sunnybrook experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
104 Background: Prostate cancer is the most prevalent non-cutaneous cancer among North American men. Approximately 50% of these are favorable risk cancers; the NCCN guideline recommends active surveillance for these patients. Patients are generally followed by serial PSAs, DREs and/or TRUS-guided biopsies with triggers identified for each test. Consequently, about 30% of these cancers will be reclassified to a higher risk and require definitive treatment. Cases treated with radical prostatectomy (rP) give important insights into the biology of these cancers. Methods: The ASURE database of active surveillance patients was used to identify cases; a retrospective chart review was completed. The following variables were extracted: primary reason for rP; % biochemical failure; % of patients requiring salvage radiation or hormone therapy; Gleason score (GS), tumor size staging and nodal status in the rP specimen; cause and rate of mortality; proportion of patients treated for PSA-doubling times less then 3 years presenting with a GS greater than 7. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Results: Of 566 patients in the ASURE database, the charts of 26 patients having an rP were extracted. The primary cause for an rP was a PSA-doubling times less than 3 years (57% of patients) followed by a biopsy indicating a GS of 4+3 or greater (19%). 7% of patients (2/26) were not reclassified but preferred to be treated with rP. 4 patients had biochemical failure (15%) all 4 had salvage therapy. There was 1 cause-specific death. 85% of rP specimens had GS 7, while the remaining had GS 6. Half of these GS 7 individuals had PSA doubling times of less than 3 years. Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy appears to be an effective deferred treatment for patients who are reclassified on active surveillance as evidenced by low prostate-cancer mortality, low rates of biochemical failure acceptable use of salvage therapy. Of interest is that the majority patients with PSAdt < 3 y have Gleason 7 disease on specimen. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".