ArticlePloS one2014
Can contemporary patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 be eligible for active surveillance?
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Characterization of a "low-risk" cohort of grade group 2 prostate cancer patients: Results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital database.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2017Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes between upgraded pathologic Gleason score 3 + 4 and non-upgraded 3 + 4 prostate cancer among patients who are candidates for active surveillance.World journal of urology · 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
introductionWe analyzed whether expansion of existing active surveillance (AS) protocols to include men with biopsy Gleason score (GS) 3+4 prostate cancer (PCa) would significantly alter pathologic and biochemical outcomes of potential candidates of AS.
methodsAmong patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our center between 2006 and 2013, we identified 577 patients (group A) who preoperatively fulfilled at least one of 6 different AS criteria. Also, we identified 217 patients (group B) with biopsy GS 3+4 but fulfilled non-GS criteria from at least one of 6 AS criteria. Designating group C as expanded group incorporating all patients in group A and B, we compared risk of unfavorable disease (pathologic GS ≥ 4+3 and/or pathologic T stage ≥ pT3a) and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival between groups.
resultsRates of unfavorable disease were not significantly different between patients of group A and C who met AS criteria from 5 institutions (all p>0.05), not including University of Toronto (p < 0.001). Also BCR-free survivals were not significantly different between patients in group A and C meeting each of 6 AS criteria (all p > 0.05). Among group B, PSAD > 0.15 ng/mL/cm3 (p = 0.011) and tumor length of biopsy GS 3+4 core > 4 mm (p = 0.007) were significant predictors of unfavorable disease. When these two criteria were newly applied in defining group B, rates of unfavorable disease in group A and B was 15.6% and 14.7%, respectively (p = 0.886).
conclusionOverall rate of pathologically aggressive PCa harbored by potential candidates for AS may not be increased significantly with expansion of criteria to biopsy GS 3+4 under most contemporary AS protocols. PSAD and tumor length of biopsy GS 3+4 core may be useful predictors of more aggressive disease among potential candidates for AS with biopsy GS 3+4.
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.