Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25422912›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015

Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer -what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies.

F Huber, M Montani, T Sulser, R Jaggi, P Wild, H Moch, H Gevensleben, M Schmid, S Wyder, G Kristiansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Contemporary review of prognostic markers of prostate cancer from a pathologist perspective.Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia · 2025
    Review
  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. Prognostic role of TSPAN1, KIAA1324 and ESRP1 in prostate cancer.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  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

10 authors.

F HuberInstitute of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
M MontaniInstitute of Surgical Pathology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
T SulserDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
R JaggiDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
P WildInstitute of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
H MochInstitute of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
H GevenslebenInstitute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, Bonn, Germany.
M SchmidInstitute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, Bonn, Germany.
S WyderDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
G KristiansenInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment planning of localised prostate cancer remains challenging. Besides conventional parameters, a wealth of prognostic biomarkers has been proposed so far. None of which, however, have successfully been implemented in a routine setting so far. The aim of our study was to systematically verify a set of published prognostic markers for prostate cancer.

methodsFollowing an in-depth PubMed search, 28 markers were selected that have been proposed as multivariate prognostic markers for primary prostate cancer. Their prognostic validity was examined in a radical prostatectomy cohort of 238 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months and biochemical progression as endpoint of the analysis. Immunohistochemical evaluation was performed using previously published cut-off values, but allowing for optimisation if necessary. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to determine the prognostic value of biomarkers included in this study.

resultsDespite the application of various cut-offs in the analysis, only four (14%) markers were verified as independently prognostic (AKT1, stromal AR, EZH2, and PSMA) for PSA relapse following radical prostatectomy.

conclusionsApparently, many immunohistochemistry-based studies on prognostic markers seem to be over-optimistic. Codes of best practice, such as the REMARK guidelines, may facilitate the performance of conclusive and transparent future studies.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkers, TumorCohort StudiesDisease ProgressionHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsProstatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID25422912
PMCPMC4453620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.