ArticleProstate international2013
Can microfocal prostate cancer be regarded as low-risk prostate cancer?
Article in Prostate international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of a family history of prostate cancer on the prognosis and features of the disease in Korea: results from a cross-sectional longitudinal pilot study.International urology and nephrology · 2017Article
- Feasibility of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for very-high risk prostate cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes in men aged ≥70 years.Prostate international · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeProstate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer has become widespread, the prostate biopsy technique has evolved, and the occurrence of low-risk prostate cancer has been increasing. Even low-risk patients may demonstrate disease upgrading or upstaging. We aimed to evaluate the clinical importance of a single microfocal prostate cancer at biopsy in patients subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy.
methodsA total of 337 cases of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy after prostate biopsies were retrospectively reviewed. Microfocal prostate cancer was defined as Gleason score 6 and a single positive core with ≤5% cancer involvement after the standard 12-core extended biopsy.
resultsOf the 337 prostatectomy specimens, 22 (6.5%) were microfocal prostate cancer based on prostate biopsy. On final pathology, microfocal patients were found to have significant 45% Gleason score upgrading (P=0.02) and 27% positive surgical margins (P=0.04) despite low PSA, compared with the nonmicrofocal prostate cancer group. Gleason upgrading was significantly higher in the microfocal prostate cancer group (P=0.02), whereas Gleason downgrading was significantly higher in the nonmicrofocal prostate cancer group (P<0.01). Furthermore, biochemical recurrence rate was no different between microfocal and nonmicrofocal prostate cancer at mean 31 months (P=0.18). Overall, 13 of 22 cases (53.1%) in the microfocal prostate cancer group showed Gleason upgrading or stage upgrading.
conclusionsBased on higher rates of Gleason score upgrading or stage upgrading cases in microfocal prostate cancer group, compared with nonmicrofocal prostate cancer group, active surveillance should be cautiously applied to these patients.
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.