MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974215038 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.019

Interim Results from the IMPACT Study: Evidence for Prostate-specific Antigen Screening in BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

2019· article· en· W2974215038 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Page, Elizabeth Bancroft, Mark N. Brook, Melissa Assel, Mona Hassan Al Battat, Sarah Thomas, Natalie Taylor, Anthony Chamberlain, Jennifer Pope, Holly Ní Raghallaigh, D. Gareth Evans, Jeanette Rothwell, Lovise Mæhle, Eli Marie Grindedal, Paul A. James, Lyon Mascarenhas, Joanne McKinley, Lucy Side, Tessy Thomas, Christi J. van Asperen, Hans F. A. Vasen, Lambertus A. Kiemeney, Janneke Ringelberg, Thomas D. Jensen, Palle Jørn Sloth Osther, Brian T. Helfand, Elena Genova, Rogier A. Oldenburg, Cezary Cybulski, Dominika Wokołorczyk, Kai‐Ren Ong, Camilla Huber, Jimmy Lam, Louise Taylor, Mónica Salinas, Lídia Feliubadaló, Jan C. Oosterwijk, Wendy van Zelst-Stams, Jackie Cook, Derek J. Rosario, Susan M. Domchek, Jacquelyn M. Powers, Saundra S. Buys, Karen O’Toole, Margreet G.E.M. Ausems, Rita K. Schmutzler, Kerstin Rhiem, Louise Izatt, Vishakha Tripathi, Manuel R. Teixeira, Marta Cardoso, William D. Foulkes, Armen Aprikian, Heleen van Randeraad, Rosemarie Davidson, Mariëlle Ruijs, Apollonia T.J.M. Helderman van den Enden, Muriel A. Adank, Rachel Williams, Lesley Andrews, Declan G. Murphy, Dorothy Halliday, Lisa Walker, Annelie Liljegren, Stefan Carlsson, Ashraf Azzabi, Irene Jobson, Catherine Morton, Kylie Shackleton, Katie Snape, Helen Hanson, Marion Harris, Marc Tischkowitz, Amy Taylor, Judy Kirk, Rachel Susman, Rakefet Chen‐Shtoyerman, Allan D. Spigelman, Nicholas Pachter, Munaza Ahmed, Teresa Ramón y Cajal, Janez Žgajnar, Carole Brewer, Neus Gadea, Angela F. Brady, Theo van Os, David Gallagher, Oskar T. Johannsson, Alan Donaldson, Julian Barwell, Nicola Nicolai, Eitan Friedman, Elias Obeid, Lynn Greenhalgh, Vedang Murthy, Lucia Copáková, Sibel Saya, John McGrath, Peter Cooke, Karina Rønlund, Kate Richardson, Alex Henderson, Soo‐Hwang Teo, Banu Arun, Karin Kast, Alexander Dias, Neil K. Aaronson, Audrey Ardern‐Jones, Chris H. Bangma, Elena Castro, David Dearnaley, Karen Tricker, Jórunn E. Eyfjörd, Alison Falconer, Christopher S. Foster, Henrik Grönberg, Freddie C. Hamdy, Vigdís Stefánsdóttir, Vincent Khoo, Geoffrey J. Lindeman, Jan Lubiński, Karol Axcrona, Christos Mikropoulos, Anita Mitra, Clare Moynihan, Gad Rennert, Mohnish Suri, Penny Wilson, Tim Dudderidge, Judith Offman, Zsofia Kote‐Jarai, Andrew J. Vickers, Hans Lilja, Rosalind A. Eeles

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreJewish General HospitalInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UK
KeywordsMedicineProstate-specific antigenInterimMutationOncologyProstateInternal medicineGynecologyCancerGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mutations in BRCA2 cause a higher risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating targeted PrCa screening using prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) in men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations. OBJECTIVE: To report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 40-69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p = 0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p = 0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p = 0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: After 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers. PATIENT SUMMARY: We demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than in those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening.

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)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.014
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.004

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations240
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207