Oncologic and Functional Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy for High or Very High Risk Prostate Cancer: European Validation of the Current NCCN® Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We validated the current NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) classification of very high risk patients, and compared the pathological, functional and oncologic outcomes between surgically treated high risk and very high risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 4,041 patients stratified into high risk or very high risk groups who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 2016. Kaplan-Meier as well as multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to compare outcomes between the groups. RESULTS: After radical prostatectomy the rate of adverse pathological features was higher in 1,369 very high risk vs 2,672 high risk cases. Functional outcomes were similar between the groups, with 1-year continence and potency rates of 81.0% and 43.6% in the very high risk compared to 81.9% and 45.2% in the high risk group, respectively (p = 0.7 and p = 0.9). In a subset of 1,835 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 2011 (median followup 58.8 months, IQR 36.5-84.6), those with very high risk disease had significantly worse 5 and 8-year biochemical recurrence-free survival, metastatic progression-free survival, prostate cancer specific mortality-free survival and overall survival rates compared to those with high risk disease. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively poor prognosis of patients with high risk prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy results in favorable 5 and 8-year metastatic progression-free survival, prostate cancer specific mortality-free survival and overall survival rates. Relative to high risk cases, their very high risk counterparts have significantly worse pathological and oncologic outcomes, and more frequently require additional therapies. These observations validate the stratification between high risk and very high risk in European patients with prostate cancer. Interestingly, very high risk patients treated with radical prostatectomy did not have a worse functional outcome than their high risk counterparts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".