Morphologic Pattern, Frequency, and Spatial Distribution of Lymphovascular Invasion Foci in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is an adverse pathological finding in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens associated with increased risk of metastatic disease. Its variable incidence may be attributed to underreporting. We characterized the location, quantity, and morphology of LVI foci in RP specimens and assessed the relationship between LVI and cribriform and intraductal carcinoma and metastatic risk. Methods. Two pathologists reviewed retrospectively 54 RP specimens reported as positive for LVI. Ambiguous cases were confirmed by immunostaining for ERG, CD31 and D2-40. Results. In 4/54 (7.4%), LVI could not be confirmed. Main mimickers of LVI were retraction artifact and dislodged tumor cells. Based on our review, the most important criteria to distinguish LVI from its mimickers were a corrugated lining of vascular spaces, endothelial nuclei bulging into the lumen, and presence of proteinaceous material. The LVI frequency per case ranged from 1 to 109 (median 7.5). In 47/50 (94%) cases with LVI, the associated carcinoma comprised cribriform pattern and/or intraductal carcinoma. The most common morphology of LVI foci was cribriform, occurring in 43/50 specimens, representing 469/843 (56%) of LVI foci. Most LVI foci were intraprostatic and located at the carcinoma-stroma interface. Particularly the risk of bone metastases during follow-up was independently associated with higher frequency of LVI foci ( P = .009). Conclusions. The detailed description of prostatic LVI, and awareness of their predominant location and morphology may help its identification and improve the diagnostic accuracy of LVI in pathology reporting. The clinical impact of LVI quantification in prostate cancer needs validation by further studies.
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".