Evaluation of an Aggressive Prostate Biopsy Strategy in Men Younger than 50 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Longitudinal cohort studies and guidelines demonstrate that prostate specific antigen 1 ng/ml or greater in younger patients confers an increased risk of delayed prostate cancer death. At our institution we have used an aggressive biopsy strategy in younger patients with prostate specific antigen 1 ng/ml or greater. Our objective was to determine the proportion of detected cancer and specifically clinically significant cancer by this strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prostate biopsy database at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre was queried for patients younger than 50 years who underwent a first prostate biopsy between 2000 and 2016. We included only patients who underwent prostate biopsy due to prostate specific antigen 1 ng/ml or greater and those with a suspicious digital rectal examination, a positive family history or a suspicious lesion on transrectal ultrasound. All clinical and pathological parameters were analyzed. Patients were stratified according to specific prostate specific antigen values. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to ascertain predictors of any prostate cancer diagnosis and of clinically significant prostate cancer. RESULTS: Of the 199 patients who met study inclusion criteria 37 (19%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 8 (22%) had a Gleason score of 7 or greater. Of those diagnosed with prostate cancer 25 (68%) had prostate specific antigen 1.5 ng/ml or greater and all men with a Gleason score of 7 or greater had prostate specific antigen 1.5 ng/ml or greater. Notably 19 patients (51%) had prostate cancer exceeding the Epstein criteria for active surveillance. Factors predicting prostate cancer included a positive family history, rising prostate specific antigen and lower prostate volume. CONCLUSIONS: Our results justify adopting an aggressive prostate biopsy strategy in men younger than 50 years with prostate specific antigen 1.5 ng/ml or greater while patients with prostate specific antigen less than 1.5 ng/ml are unlikely to have significant cancer. Special attention should be given to patients with a smaller prostate and a positive family history.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".