MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validation of the Decipher prostate cancer classifier in intermediate to high-risk men treated with radical prostatectomy but without additional therapy upon PSA rise.

2015· article· en· W2589537108 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley E. Ross, Kasra Yousefi, Bruce J. Trock, Voleak Choeurng, Lucia L.C. Lam, Helen Fedor, Mercedeh Ghadessi, Christine Buerki, Stephanie Glavaris, Debasish Sundi, Jeffrey J. Tosoian, Misop Han, Elizabeth B. Humphreys, Alan W. Partin, George J. Netto, Elai Davicioni, Edward M. Schaeffer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerCohortBiochemical recurrenceInternal medicineOncologyAdjuvant therapyCumulative incidenceAndrogen deprivation therapyCancerMetastasisBiomarkerUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

173 Background: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a primary treatment option for men with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. Though many will be effectively cured with local therapy alone, these men are by definition at higher risk of adverse pathologic findings and clinical disease recurrence. The Decipher test has been previously shown to predict metastatic progression in cohorts that included adjuvant and salvage therapy after RP. Here we evaluate Decipher in a natural history cohort of at risk men who received no additional treatment until the time of metastatic progression. Methods: Men with NCCN intermediate or high risk localized prostate cancer treated with RP at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institute (1992-2010) with at least 5 years of post-operative follow up were identified. Only men with initial undetectable PSA after surgery and who received no therapy prior to metastasis detection were included (n=765). A case-cohort design was used to randomly sample the cohort. The highest Gleason grade cancer tissue was used for RNA extraction and Decipher genomic classifier (GC) scores were calculated with a locked 22-biomarker signature and algorithm. Results: GC results were obtained for 260 patients, 28% had positive margins, 77% had EPE, 28% had SVI, 20% had lymph node invasion and 36% had Gleason ≥8 disease. Median follow up was 9 (IQR 6-12) years and at 15 years post RP the cumulative incidence of BCR, metastasis and prostate cancer specific death was 38%, 21% and 9%. Median GC score was 0.34 (IQR: 0.22-0.52) and was significantly higher among men experiencing metastatic progression during follow up (0.47 vs 0.28 respectively p<0.001). In UVA and MVA (adjusting for clinical covariates), GC had an HR of 1.48 (95% CI: 1.30-1.69, p<0.001) and 1.37 (95% CI: 1.21-1.55, p<0.001) per 10% increase, respectively. Conclusions: The majority of the men in this study had excellent long-term outcomes with surgery alone. Elevated Decipher scores correlated with metastatic events, independent of clinical risk factors. Use of Decipher may allow for selection of candidates for immediate vs. delayed adjuvant or salvage therapy following prostatectomy.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→