Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers. I. Molecular Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combined clinical and molecular heterogeneity of prostate cancer necessitates the use of prognostic, predictive, and diagnostic biomarkers to assist the clinician with treatment selection. The pathologist plays a critical role in guiding molecular biomarker testing in prostate cancer and requires a thorough knowledge of the current testing options. In the setting of clinically localized prostate cancer, prognostic biomarkers such as Ki-67 labeling, PTEN loss or mRNA-based genomic signatures can be useful to help determine whether definitive therapy is required. In the setting of advanced disease, predictive biomarkers, such as the presence of DNA repair deficiency mediated by BRCA2 loss or mismatch repair gene defects, may suggest the utility of poly-ADP ribosylase inhibition or immune checkpoint blockade. Finally, androgen receptor-related biomarkers or diagnostic biomarkers indicating the presence of small cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer may help guide the use of androgen receptor signaling inhibitors and chemotherapy. In this review, we examine the current evidence for several prognostic, predictive and diagnostic tissue-based molecular biomarkers in prostate cancer management. For each assay, we summarize a recent survey of the International Society of Urology Pathology (ISUP) members on current testing practices and include recommendations for testing that emerged from the ISUP Working Group on Molecular Pathology of Prostate Cancer and the 2019 Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.012 |
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".