Concordance of biopsy and prostatectomy diagnosis of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma in a prospectively collected data set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Intraductal and cribriform carcinoma of the prostate are increasingly recognised as independent prognosticators of poor outcome, both in prostate biopsies and surgical specimens. We studied the concordance of biopsy and prostatectomy diagnosis for these two subpathologies in relationship with pathological stage. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mandatory synoptic reporting of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens was adopted by two academic institutions in November 2015. Synoptic reports of 245 biopsy and corresponding prostatectomy specimens were interrogated to determine the prevalence of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma. Sensitivity and specificity were determined, with prostatectomy diagnosis as the gold standard. Associations with pathological stage as primary outcome parameter were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Prevalence of the combination of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma was 26.9% in biopsies and 51.8% in prostatectomy specimens. Sensitivity and specificity at biopsy were 47.2% and 94.9%, respectively. Intraductal and cribriform carcinoma at biopsy were associated with advanced pathological stage independent of grade (P = 0.013). Among patients with grade group 2 prostate cancer at biopsy, the more advanced pathological stage distribution was similar for those with a false negative and a true positive biopsy diagnosis of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma (P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: In spite of low sensitivity, intraductal and cribriform carcinoma at biopsy was associated strongly with advanced stage at radical prostatectomy. As a false negative biopsy diagnosis was equally associated with advanced pathological stage, efforts should be undertaken to improve the sensitivity of biopsy diagnosis for intraductal and cribriform carcinoma.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".