Risk Factors for Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy in Chinese Men: a Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Prostate cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers that endangers the live and health of elderly Chinese men. Currently, radical prostatectomy (RP) is the predominant treatment for localized prostate cancer, but postoperative positive surgical margins (PSMs) have been detected pathologically in some cases. Studies have shown that PSMs indicate high probability of biochemical recurrence and poor prognosis after RP. There is no consensus of risk factors for PSMs after RP in Chinese men. Objective To perform a meta-analysis of risk factors for PSMs after RP in Chinese men, providing evidence for the containment of PSMs. Methods Databases of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM and VIP were searched to collect literature on risk factors for PSMs after RP in Chinese men from the time of database creation to March 1, 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was adopted to assess the quality of included cohort studies. Stata 16.0 was used to perform meta-analysis. Results Twenty-one case-control studies were enrolled, including 6 782 patients, among whom 2 028 had PSMs. Meta-analysis indicated that high pre-RP prostate specific antigen (PSA) 〔OR=1.77, 95%CI (1.18, 2.65) 〕, perineural invasion at puncture time〔OR=5.83, 95%CI (2.05, 16.59) 〕, pre-RP clinical stage T3 or T4〔OR=2.17, 95%CI (1.06, 4.42) 〕, post-RP pathological stage T3 or T4 〔OR=4.30, 95%CI (2.43, 7.63) 〕, high percentage of positive puncture stitches〔OR=1.83, 95%CI (1.35, 2.47) 〕, high Gleason score at the time of puncture〔OR=2.14, 95%CI (1.67, 2.74) 〕, and high Gleason score after RP〔OR=2.33, 95%CI (1.80, 3.01) 〕were risk factors for PSMs after RP (P<0.05) . Subgroup analysis of different surgical approaches in RP showed that pre-RP clinical stage T3 or T4 〔OR=4.57, 95%CI (2.57, 8.12) 〕, post-RP pathological stage T3 or T4 〔OR=4.80, 95%CI (2.20, 10.48) 〕, and high Gleason score after RP〔OR=2.46, 95%CI (1.57, 3.86) 〕were risk factors for PSMs treated with laparoscopic RP (P<0.05) . But in robot-assisted RP, the risk factor was high pre-RP PSA 〔OR=2.17, 95%CI (1.60, 2.94) 〕 (P<0.05) . Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that there was high-level agreement on risks for PSMs in these studies, and the results of meta-analysis was robust. Asymmetric funnel plots showed potential publication bias for the meta-analysis of the impact of pre-RP PSA, post-RP pathological T stage and Gleason score on PSMs, while symmetric funnel plot showed no potential publication bias for the meta-analysis of the impact of pre-RP clinical T stage on PSMs. Conclusion PSA, perineural invasion at puncture time, pre-RP clinical stage T3 or T4, post-RP pathological stage T3 or T4, high percentage of positive puncture stitches, high Gleason score at the time of puncture, and high Gleason score after RP were risk factors for PSMs after RP, which should be early recognized and addressed to halt tumor growth and recurrence.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".