Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21629784›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

A tri-marker proliferation index predicts biochemical recurrence after surgery for prostate cancer.

Sameer Malhotra, Jacques Lapointe, Keyan Salari, John P Higgins, Michelle Ferrari, Kelli Montgomery, Matt van de Rijn, James D Brooks, Jonathan R Pollack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sameer MalhotraDepartment of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Jacques Lapointe
Keyan Salari
John P Higgins
Michelle Ferrari
Kelli Montgomery
Matt van de Rijn
James D Brooks
Jonathan R Pollack

Funding

Spectrum Stanford Center for clinical and Translational Research and EducationUL1TR001085 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CULLEN, MARK RICHARD, GREENBERG, HARRY BERNARD · 2013 to 2017
$37.1M
Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Education and Research (SCCTER)UL1UL1RR025744 · NCRR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GREENBERG, HARRY BERNARD · 2008 to 2011
$22.4M
Translating Prostate Cancer Gene Expression SubtypesR01CA111782 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BROOKS, JAMES D. · 2005 to 2008
$1.1M
Pathogenetics of a Clinically-favorable Prostate Cancer SubtypeR01CA122246 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI POLLACK, JONATHAN R · 2008 to 2010
$619k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001085NCI NIH HHS CA111782NCI NIH HHS CA122246NCI NIH HHS R01 CA111782NCI NIH HHS R01 CA122246NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025744
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer exhibits tremendous variability in clinical behavior, ranging from indolent to lethal disease. Better prognostic markers are needed to stratify patients for appropriately aggressive therapy. By expression profiling, we can identify a proliferation signature variably expressed in prostate cancers. Here, we asked whether one or more tissue biomarkers might capture that information, and provide prognostic utility. We assayed three proliferation signature genes: MKI67 (Ki-67; also a classic proliferation biomarker), TOP2A (DNA topoisomerase II, alpha), and E2F1 (E2F transcription factor 1). Immunohistochemical staining was evaluable on 139 radical prostatectomy cases (in tissue microarray format), with a median clinical follow-up of eight years. Each of the three proliferation markers was by itself prognostic. Notably, combining the three markers together as a "proliferation index" (0 or 1, vs. 2 or 3 positive markers) provided superior prognostic performance (hazard ratio = 2.6 (95% CI: 1.4-4.9); P = 0.001). In a multivariate analysis that included preoperative serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason grade and pathologic tumor stage, the composite proliferation index remained a significant predictor (P = 0.005). Analysis of receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves confirmed the improved prognostication afforded by incorporating the proliferation index (compared to the clinicopathologic data alone). Our findings highlight the potential value of a multi-gene signature-based diagnostic, and define a tri-marker proliferation index with possible utility for improved prognostication and treatment stratification in prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Antigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA Topoisomerases, Type IIE2F1 Transcription FactorHumansImmunohistochemistryIn Vitro TechniquesKi-67 AntigenMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPoly-ADP-Ribose Binding ProteinsProstatic NeoplasmsTissue Array AnalysisAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA Topoisomerases, Type IIE2F1 protein, humanE2F1 Transcription FactorKi-67 AntigenPoly-ADP-Ribose Binding ProteinsTOP2A protein, human

Identifiers

PMID21629784
PMCPMC3100337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.