MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403873541 · doi:10.3390/cancers16213648

The Association Between Lymphovascular or Perineural Invasion in Radical Prostatectomy Specimen and Biochemical Recurrence

2024· article· en· W4403873541 on OpenAlexaff
Carolin Siech, Mike Wenzel, Nico Grosshans, Cristina Cano Garcia, Clara Humke, Florestan Koll, Zhe Tian, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Luis Kluth, Felix K.‐H. Chun, Benedikt Hoeh, Philipp Mandel

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstatectomyPerineural invasionLymphovascular invasionBiochemical recurrenceMedicineUrologyInternal medicineProstate cancerCancerMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this study was to test for the association between lymphovascular invasion or perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Methods: Relying on a tertiary-care database, we identified prostate cancer patients treated with RP between January 2014 and June 2023. Of these, the majority underwent robotic-assisted RP (81%). Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and Cox regression models addressed BCR according to either lymphovascular invasion or perineural invasion in RP specimens. Additionally, the linear trend test assessed the association between the Gleason Grade Group or pathologic tumor stage and lymphovascular or perineural invasion. Results: Of 822 patients, 78 (9%) exhibited lymphovascular invasion and 633 (77%) exhibited perineural invasion in RP specimens. In survival analyses, the five-year BCR-free survival rates were 62% in patients with lymphovascular invasion vs. 70% in patients without lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.04) and 64% in patients with perineural invasion vs. 82% in patients without perineural invasion (p = 0.01). In univariable Cox regression models, lymphovascular invasion (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.01–2.47; p = 0.045) and perineural invasion (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.13–2.77; p = 0.013) were both associated with a higher BCR rate. After accounting for age at surgery, PSA value, pathologic tumor stage, Gleason Grade Group, lymph node invasion, positive surgical margin, surgical approach, and adjuvant radiation therapy, lymphovascular (p = 0.740) or perineural invasion (p = 0.341) were not significantly associated with a higher BCR since the Gleason Grade Group and pathologic tumor stage highly correlated with lymphovascular as well as perineural invasion. Conclusions: In univariable models, lymphovascular or perineural invasion is associated with BCR. After adjustment for standard pathologic tumor characteristics, lymphovascular or perineural invasion is not an independent predictor for BCR.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207