MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3155913238 · doi:10.3390/curroncol28020144

Tumor Biological Feature and Its Association with Positive Surgical Margins and Apical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy in Non-Metastasis Prostate Cancer

2021· article· en· W3155913238 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuo Wang, Peng Du, Cao Y, Xiao Yang, Yong Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerStage (stratigraphy)MetastasisBiochemical recurrenceUrologyProstateBiopsyT-stageCancerOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: We assessed clinical and tumor biological features and evaluated their association with positive surgical margins (PSMs) and positive apical margins (PAMs) variability after radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with non-metastasis prostate cancer (nmPCa) in our institute. Patients and methods: During the period from January 2013 to December 2017, clinical and pathological data were collected in 200 patients with nmPCa undergoing RP in the Urological department of Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute. Surgical and apical margins were stated negative and positive, separately. A dichotomous logistic regression model was used to assess clinical and tumor biological features including age, total prostate volume (TPV), biopsy positive cores (BPC), D’Amico risk grade, tumor clinical stage, International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) grade, tPSA, f/t and pelvic lymph nodes (PLN) invasion, and their association with PSMs and PAMs was evaluated. Results: Overall, men with nmPCa in this study had a high ISUP grade (58.5% grade 3–5), high risk grade (89.4%) and high clinical T stage (56% cT3-4). PSMs were detected in 106 patients; the rate of PSMs was 53%. Among patients with PSMs, 83% were PAMs; the overall rate of PAMs was 44%. Among patients with PSMs, high risk (OR, 1.439; p = 0.023), cT3a (OR, 1.737; p = 0.045), cT3b (OR, 5.286; p < 0.001), cT4 (OR, 6.12; p < 0.001), ISUP Grade 4 (OR, 2; p = 0.034) and Grade 5 (OR, 6.167; p < 0.001) and PLN invasion (OR, 6; p = 0.019) were strongly associated with PSMs using a dichotomous logistic regression univariable model, and high risk (OR, 6; p = 0.019), cT3a (OR, 5.116; p = 0.048), cT3b (OR, 9.194; p = 0.008), cT4 (OR, 4.58; p = 0.01), ISUP Grade 4 (OR, 7.04; p = 0.035), Grade 5 (OR, 16.514; p = 0.002) and PLN invasion (OR, 5.516; p = 0.03) were independently associated with PSMs by using multivariable analysis. Among patients with PAMs, cT3b (OR, 2.667; p = 0.004), cT4 (OR, 3; p = 0.034) and proportion of BPC (OR, 4.594; p = 0.027) were strongly associated with PAMs by using a dichotomous logistic regression univariable model, and cT3b (OR, 3.899; p = 0.02), cT4 (OR, 2.8; p = 0.041) and proportion of BPC (OR, 5.247; p = 0.04) were independently associated with PSMs by using multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Patients with nmPCa in our institute had high risk, high ISUP grade and high clinical stage. Tumor biological factors were strongly associated with PSMs and PAMs, and PLN invasion was independently associated with PSMs. The risk factors influenced the status of surgical margins, and apical margins were different.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→