ERG expression in prostate cancer biopsies with and without high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a study in Jordanian Arab patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Najla Aldaoud,1,2 Ashley Graboski-Bauer,3 Nour Abdo,4 Samir Al Bashir,1,2 Ashraf O Oweis,5 Hanadi Ebwaini,1 Yousef Hasen,1–2,6 Rami Alazab,7 Kiril Trpkov81Department of Pathology and Microbiology, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan; 2Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan; 3Department of Teacher Education, University of Texas, El Paso, TX, USA; 4Department of Public Health, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan; 5Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan; 6Attasami Diagnostic Center, Tripoli, Libya; 7Division of Urology, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Irbid; 8Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, CanadaBackground: High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is the most likely precancerous lesion for prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa). Recent molecular studies have shown that HGPIN can harbor TMPRSS2-ERG fusion, a genetic marker also associated with PCa, which may provide an additional risk stratification tool for HGPIN, especially when present as an isolated lesion. Our aim was to assess the frequency of HGPIN and ERG expression in a cohort of prostatic needle core biopsies from Jordanian-Arab patients with PCa.Materials and methods: We studied 109 needle core biopsies from patients with PCa. Clinical data, including age and preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, were obtained from patients’ medical records.Results: HGPIN was present in 31 (28.4 %) of the 109 cases. Of the HGPIN cases, 13 (41.9%) expressed ERG immunostain. ERG expression in HGPIN was independent of patient age at presentation (P=0.4), pre-operative PSA (P=0.9), and the grade, using the novel Grade Groups (P=0.5).Conclusion: The frequency of HGPIN in our cohort appears similar to the one found in the Western patient populations and demonstrates a comparable frequency of ERG expression in these lesions.Keywords: high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, prostate carcinoma, ERG, immunohistochemistry
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".