Features and Management of Incidental Prostatic Lymphoma Obtained in Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Surgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Prostatic lymphoma is a rare malignant tumour that frequently causes urinary tract obstruction. It is uncommon for patients to present with systemic features or B-symptoms. As a result, it is often diagnosed incidentally during surgical lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) treatment. This systematic review aims to identify any common clinical features of prostatic lymphoma diagnosed incidentally during surgical LUTS treatment and summarise disease treatment and outcomes. Methods: The study protocol was registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). A search was performed across the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Full texts of eligible studies were analysed and data were extracted. The review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 24 case reports compromising 25 cases were included. The median (IQR) age was 67 (61–73) years. All patients reported LUTS as their primary complaint, and the median duration of LUTS prior to diagnosis was 17 (4–44) months. Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was normal in 10 cases and prostatomegaly present on imaging in 16 cases. A total of 10 different subtypes of lymphoma were reported. Extra-prostatic involvement was reported in eight patients. Chemotherapy, with or without adjuvant radiotherapy, was the mainstay of lymphoma treatment. The majority of articles reported positive outcomes, with complete remission in 17 cases. Conclusions: Prostatic lymphoma is a difficult clinical diagnosis due to its similar presentation to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Although rare, prostatic lymphoma may need to be considered as a diagnosis in patients with an atypical presentation of BPH. Prognosis is often favourable after prompt referral to haematology or oncology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".