Elastography Targeted Prostate Biopsy in Patients under Active Surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine elastography-based prostate biopsy in prostate cancer (PCa) patients under active surveillance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We relied on PCa patients who opted for active surveillance and underwent elastography targeted and systematic follow-up biopsy at the Braunschweig Prostate Cancer Center between October 2009 and February 2015. Each prostate sextant was considered as an individual case. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy (ACC) for elastography to predict follow-up biopsy results were analyzed, respectively, and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were carried out by using 2000 bootstrapping sample analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 50 men and 300 sextants were identified. Overall, 27 (54%) men and 66 (22%) sextants harbored PCa at follow-up biopsy. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and ACC for elastography to predict follow-up biopsy results were: 19.7 (95% CI: 11.9-27.3), 86.8 (95% CI: 82.7-90.3), 29.6 (95% CI: 14.6-46.0), 79.3 (95% CI: 71.6-86.5), and 72.0% (95% CI: 65.7-78.3), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We recorded limited reliability of elastography-based prediction of follow-up biopsy results in active surveillance patients. Based on our analyses, we can neither recommend to rely exclusively on elastography-based targeted biopsies nor to delay or to omit follow-up biopsies based on elastography results during active surveillance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".