Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer Through Quantitative Assessment of PTEN Loss (qPTEN)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) loss has long been associated with adverse findings in early prostate cancer. Studies to date have yet to employ quantitative methods (qPTEN) for measuring of prognostically relevant amounts of PTEN loss in postsurgical settings and demonstrate its clinical application. METHODS: PTEN protein levels were measured by immunohistochemistry in radical prostatectomy samples from training (n = 410) and validation (n = 272) cohorts. PTEN loss was quantified per cancer cell and per tissue microarray core. Thresholds for identifying clinically relevant PTEN loss were determined using log-rank statistics in the training cohort. Univariate (Kaplan-Meier) and multivariate (Cox proportional hazards) analyses on various subpopulations were performed to assess biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and were independently validated. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: PTEN loss in more than 65% cancer cells was most clinically relevant and had statistically significant association with reduced BRFS in training (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.59 to 3.87; P < .001) and validation cohorts (HR = 4.22, 95% CI = 2.01 to 8.83; P < .001). The qPTEN scoring method identified patients who recurred within 5.4 years after surgery (P < .001). In men with favorable risk of biochemical recurrence (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment - Postsurgical scores <5 and no adverse pathological features), qPTEN identified a subset of patients with shorter BRFS (HR = 5.52, 95% CI = 2.36 to 12.90; P < .001) who may be considered for intensified monitoring and/or adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with previous qualitative approaches, qPTEN improves risk stratification of postradical prostatectomy patients and may be considered as a complementary tool to guide disease management after surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".