Association of extended core sampling with delayed intervention and pathologic outcomes for active surveillance patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Combined systematic plus targeted biopsy sampling improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Our objective was to evaluate whether extended core sampling at initial biopsy in active surveillance (AS) patients is associated with subsequent AS discontinuation and pathologic outcomes. METHODS: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low- and favorable-intermediate-risk (FIR) AS patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Prostate with Watchful Waiting database. Prostate biopsy sampling was operationalized as: standard (10-12 cores), extended (13-20 cores), or super-extended (21+ cores). Sensitivity analyses using differing cutoffs was performed. Outcomes included delayed definitive intervention (radical prostatectomy [RP]/radiotherapy) and pathologic upgrading and/or downgrading in delayed RP patients. Multivariable logistic regression modelling adjusted for sociodemographic/oncologic variables was performed. RESULTS: This cohort included 42 459 patients (low-risk: 28 411; FIR:14 048); 25-29% and 3-5% of patients underwent extended and super-extended core sampling, respectively, at diagnosis. Extended core sampling was associated with decreased odds of definitive intervention in low (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, p=0.003) and grade group 2 (GG2) FIR (OR 0.83, p=0.002) patients. Super-extended sampling was associated with decreased odds of definitive intervention in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 FIR patients (OR 0.65, p=0.02). Super-extended sampling was associated with decreased odds of upgrading to ≥GG2 disease in low-risk (OR 0.45, p=0.032) and to ≥GG3 disease in GG2 FIR patients (OR 0.67, p=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based analysis demonstrates that extended/super-extended sampling at diagnosis is associated with significantly decreased odds of AS discontinuation and pathologic upgrading in low/FIR AS patients. This highlights the significance of extended tissue sampling at initial biopsy to appropriately risk-stratify AS patients and minimize AS discontinuation rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".