Mucinous adenocarcinoma of prostate and prostatic adenocarcinoma with mucinous components: a clinicopathological analysis of 143 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The clinical significance of mucinous prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa) remains uncertain. METHODS: From 6440 cases of PCa treated by radical prostatectomy from 2009 to 2014, mucinous components of 5-100% were found in 143 (2.2%) cases. RESULTS: The mean age was 61.4 years, mean pre-operative serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 7.8 ng/ml and clinical stage category was cT1 in 81% and cT2 in 19% of cases. Cases were graded using the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology recommendation of grading underlying architecture, and Gleason scores (GS) were 3 + 4 in 13.3%, 4 + 3 in 54.5%, 4 + 4 in 2.1%, 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 with tertiary 5 in 11.9% and 9-10 in 18.2%. The mucinous component invariably had a high-grade component. Extraprostatic extension was found in 46.8% of cases. In 21.6%, tumour volume was ≥3 cm³ and 9.7% had surgical margin positivity. Seminal vesicle involvement was found in 6.9%. In 73 cases the mucinous component was >25%, and when cases were divided on the basis of the area of mucin present (≤25 versus >25%) there was no significant difference between clinical or pathological features. Similar findings were achieved when cases were compared with grade-matched non-mucinous carcinoma controls. The 5-year biochemical recurrence rates for mucinous versus non-mucinous cancer were 12.5 versus 17% (P = 0.15). CONCLUSION: PCa with mucinous components is often high grade; however, the prognosis appears to be similar to non-mucinous cancers of similar GS.
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) | 0.002 | 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".