ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2010
Measurements of cancer extent in a conservatively treated prostate cancer biopsy cohort.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03912883 (Prognostic Factors in Prostate Cancer for Patients Treated by Watchful Waiting), which is not on this 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.
Prognostic Factors in Prostate Cancer for Patients Treated by Watchful Waiting
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Prognostic Utility of the Gleason Grading System Revisions and Histopathological Factors Beyond Gleason Grade.Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Histopathologic False-positive Diagnoses of Prostate Cancer in the Age of Immunohistochemistry.The American journal of surgical pathology · 2019Article
- Variation in reporting of cancer extent and benign histology in prostate biopsies among European pathologists.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2014Article
- Prognostic value of PTEN loss in men with conservatively managed localised prostate cancer.British journal of cancer · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The optimal method for measuring cancer extent in prostate biopsy specimens is unknown. Seven hundred forty-four patients diagnosed between 1990 and 1996 with prostate cancer and managed conservatively were identified. The clinical end point was death from prostate cancer. The extent of cancer was measured in terms of number of cancer cores (NCC), percentage of cores with cancer (PCC), total length of cancer (LCC) and percentage length of cancer in the cores (PLC). These were correlated with prostate cancer mortality, in univariate and multivariate analysis including Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). All extent of cancer variables were significant predictors of prostate cancer death on univariate analysis: NCC, hazard ration (HR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.28, P = 0.011; PPC, HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01-1.02, P < 0.0001; LCC, HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.03, P = 0.002; PLC, HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01-1.02, P = 0.0001. In multivariate analysis including Gleason score and baseline PSA, PCC and PLC were both independently significant P = 0.004 and P = 0.012, respectively, and added further information to that provided by PSA and Gleason score, whereas NNC and LCC were no longer significant (P = 0.5 and P = 0.3 respectively). In a final model, including both extent of cancer variables, PCC was the stronger, adding more value than PLC (χ² (1df) = 7.8, P = 0.005, χ² (1df) = 0.5, P = 0.48 respectively). Measurements of disease burden in needle biopsy specimens are significant predictors of prostate-cancer-related death. The percentage of positive cores appeared the strongest predictor and was stronger than percentage length of cancer in the cores.
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.