MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

When can active surveillance be less active? Prediction of long-term nonreclassification for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

2018· article· en· W2794427394 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew R. Cooperberg, Anna Faino, Lisa F. Newcomb, Peter R. Carroll, James T. Kearns, James D. Brooks, Michael D. Fabrizio, Martin Gleave, Todd M. Morgan, Atreya Dash, Peter S. Nelson, Ian M. Thompson, Andrew A. Wagner, Daniel W. Lin, Yingye Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerBiopsyWatchful waitingProportional hazards modelRegimenProstate biopsyProstate-specific antigenProstateCancerGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

140 Background: Active surveillance is endorsed as the preferred management strategy for most men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, nearly all active surveillance protocols entail prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing every 3-6 months, and prostate biopsies every 1-2 years. For many men with indolent tumors, this regimen is overly intense, and exposes men to the discomfort, risks, and costs of repeated biopsies. We aimed to determine if some men can be safely selected for a less intense surveillance regimen by predicting the probability of non-reclassification over the next 4 years of surveillance. Methods: Data were collected from men in the multicenter Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS), in which PSAs are collected q3 months and biopsies performed 12 months of diagnosis and then every 2 years. For inclusion in this study, men had to have undergone ≤ 1 follow up biopsy, and have Gleason grade group 1 at diagnosis. Reclassification was defined as increase in Gleason grade group on subsequent biopsy; those without reclassification were censored at last study contact, treatment or 2 years after last biopsy. A dynamic risk prediction model based on a Cox regression with robust variance estimates was used to construct and test a model predicting non-reclassification. Results: Of 1082 men included, 362 (33%) reclassified and the remaining were censored. The final regression model included percent of biopsy cores involved, prior biopsy history, time since diagnosis, BMI, prostate size, diagnostic PSA, and PSAk (a measure of PSA kinetics). This dynamic risk prediction model was assessed at a measurement time of 1 year after diagnosis, predicting risk of reclassification at 4 years. Men at lowest and highest deciles of this model-based risk faced 6% (95%CI 0-12%) and 73% (55-84%) risks of reclassification within 5 years. For at least 10% of the men in the cohort, the negative predictive value (NPV) for reclassification was 95% or higher. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of men with low-risk prostate cancer can safely be followed with a de-intensified active surveillance protocol, which would improve both the tolerability and cost-effectiveness of this management strategy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.329 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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