Xanthogranulomatous Prostatitis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: To understand the clinical characteristics, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of xanthogranulomatous prostatitis. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Medline following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including case reports and case series. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) document. The systematic review process aimed to gather and synthesize all available research evidence on the topic. Results: We included 24 articles reporting on 33 patients, with a median age of 64 years. The most common presenting symptoms were lower urinary tract symptoms (81.8%), and only one patient was asymptomatic. The mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level upon presentation was 6.5 ng/mL. Notably, 51.5% of patients were suspected of harbouring clinically significant prostate carcinoma, and only one patient had concurrent prostate adenocarcinoma. All diagnoses were based on changes associated with xanthogranulomatous prostatitis demonstrated upon histopathological examination. A variety of pathogens were isolated, including Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proteus species, and Enterobacter species. Transurethral resection of the prostate (60.6%) was the mainstay approach to management. In total, 27.3% of patients were successfully managed with non-surgical therapy. Conclusions: The majority of patients were suspected of prostate carcinoma prior to the histopathological diagnosis of xanthogranulomatous prostatitis. One patient underwent unnecessary radical prostatectomy as a result. The management of xanthogranulomatous prostatitis includes transurethral resection of the prostate and conservative management with the use of antibiotics. This outlines the importance of following well-established protocols upon suspicion of prostate carcinoma in order to avoid unnecessary radical prostatectomy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".