MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association of baseline perineural invasion with shorter time to progression in men with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance: Results from the REDEEM study.

2015· article· en· W2591137227 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel M. Moreira, Neil Fleshner, Stephen J. Freedland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerineural invasionProstatectomyProstate cancerProstate-specific antigenProstateInternal medicinePathologicalCancerTumor progressionBiopsyOncologyProportional hazards modelDutasterideUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

23 Background: Perineural invasion (PNI) on prostate cancer (PC) biopsies has been associated with disease upgrading among those undergoing radical prostatectomy. However, the clinical significance of PNI in men on active surveillance (AS) has been evaluated by a limited number of studies. Thus, we sought to evaluate the association of PNI with time to clinical and pathological progression in men with PC on AS. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 289 men 48 to 82 years old on AS for low-risk PC (T1c-T2a), Gleason ≤6, ≤3 positive cores, ≤50% of any core involved, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤11ng/ml, life expectancy >5 years and follow-up data in the REduction by Dutasteride of clinical progression Events in Expectant Management study. Progression was divided in pathological (>3 positive cores, >50% core involvement or Gleason >6 in a repeat biopsy) or therapeutic (any treatment for PC) or both. Time to progression was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier plots, log-rank tests and Cox model adjusting for age, PSA density, percent cores involved, maximum core involvement and treatment. Results: A total of 11 (4%) patients had PNI on baseline biopsy. PNI was associated with higher tumor length and maximum core involvement (all P<0.05). PNI was not associated with patient’s age, race, PSA levels or density, percent or number of positive cores. After a median follow-up of 37 months, 125 (43%) patients developed progression. Of these, 95 (76%) patients had pathological and 30 (24%) had therapeutic progression. In univariable analysis, patients with baseline PNI had a shorter time to overall and pathological progression (HR=2.62, 95%CI=1.31-5.23, P=0.006 and HR=2.42, 95%CI=1.03-5.66, P=0.041, respectively). Similar results were obtained in multivariable analysis for overall and pathological progression (HR=2.26, 95%CI=1.10-4.68, P=0.028 and HR=2.13, 95%CI=0.88-5.13, P=0.092, respectively). Conclusions: Among patients with PC on AS, PNI is independently associated with shorter time to progression. Thus, PNI may be used to help select patients for AS and stratify them according to the risk of disease progression.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.359 · 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→