MP20-13 VALIDATION OF A MODIFIED GLEASON GRADING SYSTEM IN A CANADIAN COHORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Staging I1 Apr 2017MP20-13 VALIDATION OF A MODIFIED GLEASON GRADING SYSTEM IN A CANADIAN COHORT Marc Zanaty, Mansour Alnazari, Mila Mansour, Pierre Karakiewicz, Emanuele Zaffuto, Raisa Pompe, Roger Valdivieso, Assaad Elhakim, and Kevin Zorn Marc ZanatyMarc Zanaty More articles by this author , Mansour AlnazariMansour Alnazari More articles by this author , Mila MansourMila Mansour More articles by this author , Pierre KarakiewiczPierre Karakiewicz More articles by this author , Emanuele ZaffutoEmanuele Zaffuto More articles by this author , Raisa PompeRaisa Pompe More articles by this author , Roger ValdiviesoRoger Valdivieso More articles by this author , Assaad ElhakimAssaad Elhakim More articles by this author , and Kevin ZornKevin Zorn More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.645AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Commonly used Gleason score grading of prostate cancer presents various deficiencies. Recently a new 5 Grade Group system has been developed sub-stratifying standard Biopsy Gleason scores 6, 3+4, 4+3, 8 and 9-10 into 5 distinct, prognostic Groups 1-5. We sought to replicate this new grading system for surgical Gleason score on a large contemporary Canadian cohort. METHODS Analysis was realized on pathologic specimens of a prospectively maintained Canadian database of men who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) between 2006 and 2016 at two major academic centers in Montreal. Outcome was based on biochemical recurrence (BCR) defined as a rising PSA>0.2ng/mL. The log-rank test assessed univariable differences in BCR by the novel Gleason score groups from prostate biopsy. Separate univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards used four possible categorizations of Gleason scores. RESULTS Of the 617 patients eligible for analysis, 102, 398, 57, 34, 26 were classified as group 1,2,3,4,5 respectively. With a mean follow-up of 28 months, significant differences in BCR rates between both Gleason 3 + 4 versus 4 + 3 (p<0.001) were observed. There were no statistical difference in BCR rates between Gleason 8 versus 9-10 (p= 0.342). The hazard ratios relative to Gleason score 6 were 1.531 95% CI (0.588; 3.987), 5.146 (1.754; 15.098), 8.157 (2.783; 23.911), and 11.7 (3.585; 30.804) for Gleason scores 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 8, and 9–10, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The present study demonstrates the importance of the separation of the two Gleason categories 3+4 versus 4+3 in the new system. Further studies are warranted to implement the updated system for more accurate prognostications, and to improve patient counseling of cancer grading. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e244 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Marc Zanaty More articles by this author Mansour Alnazari More articles by this author Mila Mansour More articles by this author Pierre Karakiewicz More articles by this author Emanuele Zaffuto More articles by this author Raisa Pompe More articles by this author Roger Valdivieso More articles by this author Assaad Elhakim More articles by this author Kevin Zorn More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".