PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-4 (4)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer 
The New England journal of medicine  2014;370(10):932-942.
BACKGROUND
Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among men with localized prostate cancer; however, important questions regarding long-term benefit remain.
METHODS
Between 1989 and 1999, we randomly assigned 695 men with early prostate cancer to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy and followed them through the end of 2012. The primary end points in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) were death from any cause, death from prostate cancer, and the risk of metastases. Secondary end points included the initiation of androgen-deprivation therapy.
RESULTS
During 23.2 years of follow-up, 200 of 347 men in the surgery group and 247 of the 348 men in the watchful-waiting group died. Of the deaths, 63 in the surgery group and 99 in the watchful-waiting group were due to prostate cancer; the relative risk was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.77; P = 0.001), and the absolute difference was 11.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.5 to 17.5). The number needed to treat to prevent one death was 8. One man died after surgery in the radical-prostatectomy group. Androgen-deprivation therapy was used in fewer patients who underwent prostatectomy (a difference of 25.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 17.7 to 32.3). The benefit of surgery with respect to death from prostate cancer was largest in men younger than 65 years of age (relative risk, 0.45) and in those with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (relative risk, 0.38). However, radical pros-tatectomy was associated with a reduced risk of metastases among older men (relative risk, 0.68; P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS
Extended follow-up confirmed a substantial reduction in mortality after radical prostatectomy; the number needed to treat to prevent one death continued to decrease when the treatment was modified according to age at diagnosis and tumor risk. A large proportion of long-term survivors in the watchful-waiting group have not required any palliative treatment. (Funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.)
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1311593
PMCID: PMC4118145  PMID: 24597866
2.  Histological stain evaluation for machine learning applications 
Journal of Pathology Informatics  2013;4(Suppl):S11.
Aims:
A methodology for quantitative comparison of histological stains based on their classification and clustering performance, which may facilitate the choice of histological stains for automatic pattern and image analysis.
Background:
Machine learning and image analysis are becoming increasingly important in pathology applications for automatic analysis of histological tissue samples. Pathologists rely on multiple, contrasting stains to analyze tissue samples, but histological stains are developed for visual analysis and are not always ideal for automatic analysis.
Materials and Methods:
Thirteen different histological stains were used to stain adjacent prostate tissue sections from radical prostatectomies. We evaluate the stains for both supervised and unsupervised classification of stain/tissue combinations. For supervised classification we measure the error rate of nonlinear support vector machines, and for unsupervised classification we use the Rand index and the F-measure to assess the clustering results of a Gaussian mixture model based on expectation–maximization. Finally, we investigate class separability measures based on scatter criteria.
Results:
A methodology for quantitative evaluation of histological stains in terms of their classification and clustering efficacy that aims at improving segmentation and color decomposition. We demonstrate that for a specific tissue type, certain stains perform consistently better than others according to objective error criteria.
Conclusions:
The choice of histological stain for automatic analysis must be based on its classification and clustering performance, which are indicators of the performance of automatic segmentation of tissue into morphological components, which in turn may be the basis for diagnosis.
doi:10.4103/2153-3539.109869
PMCID: PMC3678749  PMID: 23766933
Support vector machines; expectation-maximization; Gaussian mixture model; F-measure; Rand index; Mahalanobis distance; Fisher criterion; high throughput imaging systems
3.  The metabolic syndrome and the risk of prostate cancer under competing risks of death from other causes 
Background
Associations between Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) components and prostate cancer development have not been studied comprehensively; results have been divergent. Using the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment panel III (NCEP) and International Diabetes Federation (IDF) definitions of the MetS we investigated such associations taking competing risks of death into consideration.
Methods
In the prospective Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men (ULSAM) of 2322 Caucasian men with 34 years of follow-up baseline MetS-measurements at age 50 were used. Cumulative incidence of prostate cancer and death with/without the MetS were calculated. Competing risk of dying was taken into account by calculating the conditional probability of prostate cancer with/without the MetS.
Results
Two-hundred-and- thirty-seven prostate cancers were identified. Prostate cancer probability by age 80 with baseline MetS compared to without the MetS was non-significantly higher, 5.2 percent-units (CI -0.8%-11.3%, (NCEP), 2.7 percent-units (CI -2.7%-8.0%) (IDF), cumulative incidence proportions of death was significantly higher, 19.3 percent-units (CI 13.4%-25.3%) (NCEP), 15.3 percent-units (CI 9.5%-21.1%) (IDF) and conditional probability of prostate cancer considering death from other causes was significantly higher, 7.3 percent-units (CI 0.2%-14.5%) odds ratio(OR) of 1.64 (CI 1.03-2.23). (NCEP), and non-significantly higher 5.0 percent-units (CI -1.6%-11.6%) OR 1.43 (CI 0.89-1.90). (IDF).
Conclusions
The MetS by the NCEP definition is associated with prostate cancer taking the competing risk of early death from other causes into account.
Impact
The results further highlight the public health impact of the increasing prevalence of MetS, and the importance of considering competing risks when studying risk factors for cancer.
doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0112
PMCID: PMC2923431  PMID: 20647401
epidemiology; prostate cancer; metabolic syndrome; competing risk; risk factors
4.  Radical Prostatectomy Versus Watchful Waiting in Localized Prostate Cancer: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 Randomized Trial 
Background
The benefit of radical prostatectomy in patients with early prostate cancer has been assessed in only one randomized trial. In 2005, we reported that radical prostatectomy improved prostate cancer survival compared with watchful waiting after a median of 8.2 years of follow-up. We now report results after 3 more years of follow-up.
Methods
From October 1, 1989, through February 28, 1999, 695 men with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy (n = 347) or watchful waiting (n = 348). Follow-up was complete through December 31, 2006, with histopathologic review and blinded evaluation of causes of death. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Statistical tests were two-sided.
Results
During a median of 10.8 years of follow-up (range = 3 weeks to 17.2 years), 137 men in the surgery group and 156 in the watchful waiting group died (P = .09). For 47 of the 347 men (13.5%) who were randomly assigned to surgery and 68 of the 348 men (19.5%) who were not, death was due to prostate cancer. The difference in cumulative incidence of death due to prostate cancer remained stable after about 10 years of follow-up. At 12 years, 12.5% of the surgery group and 17.9% of the watchful waiting group had died of prostate cancer (difference = 5.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2 to 11.1%), for a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.45 to 0.94; P = .03). The difference in cumulative incidence of distant metastases did not increase beyond 10 years of follow-up. At 12 years, 19.3% of men in the surgery group and 26% of men in the watchful waiting group had been diagnosed with distant metastases (difference = 6.7%, 95% CI = 0.2 to 13.2%), for a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.47 to 0.88; P = .006). Among men who underwent radical prostatectomy, those with extracapsular tumor growth had 14 times the risk of prostate cancer death as those without it (RR = 14.2, 95% CI = 3.3 to 61.8; P < .001).
Conclusion
Radical prostatectomy reduces prostate cancer mortality and risk of metastases with little or no further increase in benefit 10 or more years after surgery.
doi:10.1093/jnci/djn255
PMCID: PMC2518167  PMID: 18695132

Results 1-4 (4)