Organ-confined pT2 ISUP4/5 vs. nonorgan confined pT3/4 ISUP2 vs. ISUP3 prostate cancer: Differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To test for differences in organ-confined pathological tumor stage (pT) and intermediate International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) grade vs. nonorgan confined pT stage and high ISUP grade and biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Relying on a tertiary-care database, prostate cancer patients undergoing RP between January 2014 and December 2021 were stratified according to their combination of pT stage and ISUP grade in RP specimens (pT2 ISUP4/5 vs. pT3/4 ISUP2 vs. pT3/4 ISUP3). As Active Surveillance is recommended in ISUP1, these patients were excluded. Moreover, patients with pT2 ISUP2/3 are known for their good prognosis and pT3/4 ISUP4/5 patients for their poor prognosis. Therefore, these patients were also excluded from analyses. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and multivariable Cox regression models addressed BCR after RP. RESULTS: Of 215 RP patients, 29 (13%) exhibited pT2 ISUP4/5 vs. 122 (57%) pT3/4 ISUP2 vs. 64 (30%) pT3/4 ISUP3 pathology. In survival analyses, 3-year BCR-free survival rates were 95% in pT2 ISUP4/5 vs. 88% in pT3/4 ISUP2 vs. 65% in pT3/4 ISUP3 patients (P < 0.001). In multivariable Cox regression models addressing BCR, pT3/4 ISUP3 pathology was associated with higher BCR rate relative to pT2 ISUP4/5 pathology (hazard ratio 3.42, 95% confidence interval 1.07-10.94; P = 0.039), but not pT3/4 ISUP2 pathology (P = 0.6). CONCLUSION: Compared to prostate cancer patients with pT2 ISUP4/5 pathology, the combination of pT3/4 ISUP3 pathology is associated with higher risk of BCR after RP. In consequence, patients with pT3/4 ISUP3 pathology should be considered for a closer postoperative follow-up.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".