Guideline for optimization of surgical and pathological quality performance for radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer management: evidentiary base
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The objective is to provide surgical and pathological guidelines for radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without concurrent pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) to achieve optimal benefit for patients, with minimal risk of harm.Methods: For surgical questions, a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database was performed.A literature search for the pathological questions was not conducted since the protocol for invasive carcinomas of the prostate gland developed by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) was endorsed.Urologists and pathologists were consulted for their assessment of the surgical and pathological recommendations.Results: Limited high-quality evidence from 95 primary studies was available and, therefore, the expert panel developed recommendations on the basis of a consensus of the expert opinion of the working group and through a consultation with urologists and pathologists.In addition to the CAP protocol, some technical recommendations related to the handling and processing of the specimen were made.Conclusion: Radical prostatectomy is recommended for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer, depending on a patient's preoperative risk profile.The panel unanimously determined that the goals for RP are to attain a positive margin rate of <25% for pT2 disease, a mortality rate of <1%, rates of rectal injury of <1% and blood transfusion rates of <10% in non-anemic patients.Standard PLND should be mandatory in high-risk patients, should be recommended for intermediate-risk patients and should be optional for low-risk patients.The quality and effectiveness of this treatment and of subsequent patient care depend on good management, effective communication and reporting between surgeons and pathologists working together as part of a multidisciplinary team.The complete guideline document is posted on the Cancer Care Ontario website (www.cancercare.on.ca); search in their Toolbox, Quality Guidelines & Standards, Clinical Program category under "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 | 0.019 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".