Impact of the Level of Urothelial Carcinoma Involvement of the Prostate on Survival after Radical Cystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Urothelial prostatic involvement (UPI) at the time of radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP) was found associated with worse survival outcomes by several previous reports. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of different levels of UPI on survival outcomes using a large series of male patients treated with RCP. Methods: Whole step section specimens from 995 male BCa patients were assessed for UPI defined as: no involvement vs. prostatic urethral carcinoma in situ (CIS) vs. lamina propria involvement vs. ductal CIS vs. prostate stromal involvement. Primary end point of the study was predictors of prostatic involvement at RCP and its impact on overall survival after surgery. Results: Prostatic involvement was recorded in 307 (30.9%) patients: 28% with prostatic urethral CIS, 12% with lamina propria involvement, 13% with ductal CIS and 47% with stromal involvement. Median follow-up was 70 months. Patients with stromal involvement had a worse 5-year survival (12%) than those with prostatic urethra CIS (40%), lamina propria involvement (36%), and ductal CIS (35%). Considering predictors of prostatic involvement, multifocal tumor (Odds Ratio [OR]: 6.60, p < 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (OR: 2.61, p < 0.001), lymph node metastases (OR: 2.02, p < 0.001) and CIS (OR: 2.02, p < 0.001) were found associated. Similar predictors were found assessing stromal involvement. Conclusions Approximately one third of RCP patients harbor prostatic involvement of urothelial carcinoma. While all UPI are associated with worse overall survival, stromal involvement confers the worst outcome supporting its classification as T4 in the TNM staging.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".