MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4243521236 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1601

MP42-16 CONTEMPORARY PATIENTS WITH BIOPSY GLEASON 3+4 PROSTATE CANCER: ELIGIBILITY FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE

2015· article· en· W4243521236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ohseong Kwon, Hakmin Lee, Jung Ki Jo, Young Ik Lee, Jong Jin Oh, Sangchul Lee, Seong Jin Jeong, Seok‐Soo Byun, Sang Eun Lee, Sung Kyu Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstatectomyBiopsyProstate biopsyCancerGynecologyInternal medicineGeneral surgeryUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized I1 Apr 2015MP42-16 CONTEMPORARY PATIENTS WITH BIOPSY GLEASON 3+4 PROSTATE CANCER: ELIGIBILITY FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE Ohseong Kwon, Hakmin Lee, Jung Ki Jo, Young Ik Lee, Jong Jin Oh, Sangchul Lee, Seong Jin Jeong, Seok-Soo Byun, Sang Eun Lee, and Sung Kyu Hong Ohseong KwonOhseong Kwon More articles by this author , Hakmin LeeHakmin Lee More articles by this author , Jung Ki JoJung Ki Jo More articles by this author , Young Ik LeeYoung Ik Lee More articles by this author , Jong Jin OhJong Jin Oh More articles by this author , Sangchul LeeSangchul Lee More articles by this author , Seong Jin JeongSeong Jin Jeong More articles by this author , Seok-Soo ByunSeok-Soo Byun More articles by this author , Sang Eun LeeSang Eun Lee More articles by this author , and Sung Kyu HongSung Kyu Hong More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1601AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We analyzed whether expansion of existing active surveillance (AS) protocols to include men with biopsy Gleason score (GS) 3+4 prostate cancer (PCa) would significantly alter pathologic and biochemical outcomes of potential candidates of AS. METHODS Among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our center between 2006 and 2013, we identified 577 patients (group A) who preoperatively fulfilled at least one of 6 different AS criteria. Also, we identified 217 patients (group B) with biopsy GS 3+4 but fulfilled non-GS criteria from at least one of 6 AS criteria. Designating group C as expanded group incorporating all patients in group A and B, we compared risk of unfavorable disease (pathologic GS ≥4+3 and/or pathologic T stage ≥pT3a) and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival between groups. RESULTS Rates of unfavorable disease were not significantly different between patients of group A and C who met AS criteria from 5 institutions (all p> 0.05), not including University of Toronto (p< 0.001). Also BCR-free survivals were not significantly different between patients in group A and C meeting each of 6 AS criteria (all p> 0.05). Among group B, PSAD >0.15 ng/mL/cm3 (p= 0.011) and tumor length of biopsy GS 3+4 core > 4 mm (p= 0.007) were significant predictors of unfavorable disease. When these two criteria were newly applied in defining group B, rates of unfavorable disease in group A and B was 15.6% and 14.7%, respectively (p= 0.886). CONCLUSIONS Overall rate of pathologically aggressive PCa harbored by potential candidates for AS may not be increased significantly with expansion of criteria to biopsy GS 3+4 under most contemporary AS protocols. PSAD and tumor length of biopsy GS 3+4 core may be useful predictors of more aggressive disease among potential candidates for AS with biopsy GS 3+4. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e515 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ohseong Kwon More articles by this author Hakmin Lee More articles by this author Jung Ki Jo More articles by this author Young Ik Lee More articles by this author Jong Jin Oh More articles by this author Sangchul Lee More articles by this author Seong Jin Jeong More articles by this author Seok-Soo Byun More articles by this author Sang Eun Lee More articles by this author Sung Kyu Hong More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Urology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→