ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2014
[Objective grading of prostate carcinoma based on fractal dimensions: Gleason 3 + 4= 7a ≠ Gleason 4 + 3 =7b].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2014. 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.
- The Quantitative Criteria Based on the Fractal Dimensions, Entropy, and Lacunarity for the Spatial Distribution of Cancer Cell Nuclei Enable Identification of Low or High Aggressive Prostate Carcinomas.Frontiers in physiology · 2016Article
- Fractal analysis and the diagnostic usefulness of silver staining nucleolar organizer regions in prostate adenocarcinoma.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2015Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSignificant intra- and interobserver variability ranging between 40 and 80% is observed in tumor grading of prostate carcinoma. By combining geometric and statistical methods, an objective system of grading can be designed. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe distributions of cell nuclei in two-dimensional patterns of prostate cancer classified subjectively as Gleason score 3+3, 3+4, 4+3, 4+4, 4+5, 5+4, and 5+5 were analyzed with algorithms measuring the global fractal dimensions of the Rényi family and with the algorithm for the local connected fractal dimension (LCFD).
resultsThe dimensions for global fractal capacity, information, and correlation (standard deviation) were 1.470 (045), 1.528 (046), and 1.582 (099) for homogenous Gleason grade 3 (n = 16), 1.642 (034), 1.678 (041), and 1.673 (084) for homogenous Gleason grade 4 (n=18), and 1.797 (042), 1.791 (026), and 1.854 (031) for homogenous Gleason grade 5 (n=12), respectively. The LCFD algorithm can be used to distinguish both qualitatively and quantitatively between mixed and heterogeneous patterns, such as Gleason score 3+4=7a (intermediate risk cancer) and Gleason score 4+3=7b (high-risk cancer). Sensitivity of the method is 89.3%, and specificity 84.3%.
conclusionThe method of fractal geometry enables both an objective and quantitative grading of prostate cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25015793What 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.