Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25330857›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2015

Lymphovascular invasion is significantly associated with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy even in patients with pT2N0 negative resection margin.

K Mitsuzuka, S Narita, T Koie, Y Kaiho, N Tsuchiya, T Yoneyama, N Kakoi, S Kawamura, T Tochigi, C Ohyama and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors.

K Mitsuzuka1] Department of Urology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan [2] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan.
S Narita1] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan [2] Department of Urology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
T Koie1] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan [2] Department of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Y Kaiho1] Department of Urology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan [2] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan.
N Tsuchiya1] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan [2] Department of Urology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
T Yoneyama1] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan [2] Department of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
N Kakoi1] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan [2] Department of Urology, Miyagi Cancer Center, Natori, Japan.
S Kawamura1] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan [2] Department of Urology, Miyagi Cancer Center, Natori, Japan.
T Tochigi1] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan [2] Department of Urology, Miyagi Cancer Center, Natori, Japan.
C Ohyama1] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan [2] Department of Urology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
T Habuchi1] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan [2] Department of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Y Arai1] Department of Urology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan [2] Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group, Sendai, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe significance of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) remains controversial, and the association of LVI with biochemical relapse was investigated in men treated with radical prostatectomy according to pathological results.

methodsData from 1268 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2000 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinicopathological variables were compared between LVI-negative and LVI-positive patients. Multivariate analyses by Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method were performed to identify risk factors for biochemical relapse in all patients, patients with pT2N0 and pT2N0 negative resection margin (RM).

resultsLVI information was available in 1160 cases, and LVI was seen in 121 cases (10.4%). Clinicopathological variables were significantly worse in LVI-positive patients than in LVI-negative patients. On multivariate analyses, PSA⩾10 ng ml(-1), pathological Gleason score ⩾8, pathological T stage ⩾3, lymph node metastasis, positive RM and LVI were independent predictors for biochemical relapse in all patients. In patients with pT2N0, PSA⩾10 ng ml(-1), pathological Gleason score ⩾8, positive RM and LVI were independent predictors for biochemical relapse. In patients with pT2N0 negative RM, LVI and pathological Gleason score ⩾8 were independent predictors for biochemical relapse (LVI; hazard ratio 3.809, 95% confidence interval 1.900-7.635, P-value<0.001, Gleason score ⩾8; hazard ratio 2.189, 95% confidence interval 1.199-3.999, P-value=0.011). With a median follow-up of 50 months, 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival in patients with pT2N0 negative RM was 95.7% in those with negative LVI in comparison to 85.3% in those with positive LVI (P<0.001, log rank).

conclusionsLVI was consistently a significant predictor for biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy in not only all patients but also in patients with pT2N0 and pT2N0 negative RM. These results strongly support the significance of LVI as a predictor for biochemical relapse.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyAgedAged, 80 and overHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingProstatic NeoplasmsRecurrenceRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID25330857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.