DNA Ploidy as a Potential Adjunct Prognostic Marker of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Progression after Radical Prostatectomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Post prostatectomy PSA kinetics and General Grade Groups (GGG) are the strongest prognostic markers of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and prostate cancer (PCa)-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. Despite having low-risk PCa, some patients will experience BCR, for some, clinically significant BCR. There is a need for an objective prognostic marker at the time of prostatectomy to improve risk stratification within this population. In this study, we investigated the prognostic potential of DNA ploidy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prostatectomy samples from 97 patients with GGG1 and GGG2 with a low-risk CAPRA-S score were included in this study. PCa tissue with the worst Gleason pattern underwent tissue disaggregation, cell isolation and staining with a DNA stoichiometric stain. Using image cytometry, DNA ploidy was measured and a Ploidy Score (PS) was generated. RESULTS: Among the 97 patients, 79 had no BCR, 18 experienced BCR, of which 14 had a PSA doubling time (PSA-DT) >1 year (low-risk group) and 4 had a PSA-DT of <1 year (high-risk group). Using Logistic regression analysis, only pathological T stage (pT) and PS independently predicted BCR with PS being the most significant (p = 0.001). The number of aneuploid cells was significantly higher in the high-risk group compared to the other groups (p = 1.7x10-11). PS combined with GGG diagnosis further stratified risk groups of biochemical recurrence free survival within CAPRA-S low-risk cohort. CONCLUSION: DNA ploidy is an independent prognostic marker of BCR in low-risk PCa after radical prostatectomy, which could early on identify potentially aggressive PCa recurrences and introduce a more personalized approach to salvage treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".