ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2007
[The value of the modified Gleason grading system of prostate adenocarcinoma in routine urological diagnostics].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The presence of secondary circulating prostate tumour cells determines the risk of biochemical relapse for patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are treated only with external radiotherapy.Ecancermedicalscience · 2018Review
- [Prostate gland - what would urologists like to know from radiologists?]Der Radiologe · 2017Review
- [Patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: Stage migration and changes in tumor characteristics from 1998-2012].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2016Article
- [Documentation quality of histopathology reports of prostate needle biopsies: a snapshot].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2014Article
- [Clinical insignificance of prostate cancer: are there morphological findings?].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In several consensus conferences of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), the Gleason grading system of prostatic carcinomas was modified and adapted to the routine histological diagnostics of specimens of core needle biopsies and radical prostatectomies. The main results are the documentation of all histological patterns (primary, secondary, tertiary) and a shifting of the maximal Gleason score of biopsies from 6 to 7a (3+4) and of radical prostatectomies from 6 and 7 to 7a and 7b (4+3). Score 2 to 4 carcinomas do not exist in the peripheral prostate. pT2 prostatic carcinomas with good prognosis have a maximal score of 7a; pT3 carcinomas with poor prognosis have a most frequent score of 7b. The agreement of the Gleason scores of core needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens is more than 80%. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility is better than after the conventional Gleason grading. The prognostic value of scores 6 and 7a may be similar. The border between low- and high-grade prostatic carcinoma may be probably Gleason score 7a and 7b. The prognostic value of score 6 should be changed to score 7a in the different therapeutic options for prostatic carcinomas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.