MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Defining subgroups of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer for whom active surveillance is safe.

2025· article· en· W4407700904 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruben Del Castillo, Danny Vesprini, Stanley K. Liu, Hon S. Leong, Mona Beera, Liying Zhang, Alexandre Mamedov, Meghan Kulasingham-Poon, Laurence Klotz, Andrew Loblaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersSunnybrook Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstateCancerWatchful waitingOncologyInternal medicineGynecologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

393 Background: A number of guideline groups recommend active surveillance (AS) for patients with low risk prostate cancer as well as selected patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) – these groups are not well defined. Our group has previously shown that some patients with IRPC have high rates of progression to advanced disease. The goal of this study was to determine a subset of patients with IRPC where AS is safe. Methods: This single-institution, phase II study enrolled men with low-risk and selected IRPC patients since 1995. Patients were followed with PSA every 3-6 months, DRE every 6 months with repeat systematic biopsies at 1 year and every 3 years. Since 2013, MRI staging was done every 2 years with targeted and systematic biopsies done for new or growing lesions. Patients were followed until death or withdrawn consent. Time to treatment, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival were calculated from date of registration biopsy. Results: 1409 men were analyzed with a median follow-up of 11.0 years (range 1.2 – 26.4 years). Median age and PSA at registration biopsy were 67 years and 5.03 ng/ml. 86.4%, 11.8% and 1.7% had GG1, GG2 and GG3 disease. 72.9%, 5.8%, 7.3% and 13.6% had low, GG1 favourable IRPC (FIR), GG2 FIR and unfavourable risk ds (UIR). 996 men had at least one repeat biopsy, 768 reclassified, 604 underwent treatment, 166 had biochemical failure, 64 developed metastases and 41 died of prostate cancer. 10 year MFS was 97.4%. Absolute percentage pattern 4/5 (APP4) at baseline had a sensitivity of 36%, specificity of 86% and AUC of 64% with an optimal cutpoint of >0.30 for predicting MFS. Multivariable analysis (MVA) revealed APP4 (HR 2.86) at baseline and at repeat biopsy (vs baseline) of high risk vs UIR (HR 5.61) and high risk vs GG2 FIR (HR 10.4) were independent predictors of MFS. 10 year CSS was 98.5%. MVA revealed APP4 (>0.7, AUC 67%; HR 3.13) and high risk vs UIR (HR 34.4) were independent predictors of CSS. Conclusions: Patients with GG1 prostate cancer and those with GG2 FIR and APP4 < 0.30 appear to have very low risk of metastases and prostate cancer death and are suitable for active surveillance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.415 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→