Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25723513›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

High progesterone receptor expression in prostate cancer is associated with clinical failure.

Thea Grindstad, Sigve Andersen, Samer Al-Saad, Tom Donnem, Yury Kiselev, Christian Nordahl Melbø-Jørgensen, Kaja Skjefstad, Lill-Tove Busund, Roy M Bremnes, Elin Richardsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The androgen receptor-targeted proteolysis targeting chimera and other alternative therapeutic choices in overcoming the resistance to androgen deprivation treatment in prostate cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thea GrindstadDept. of Medical Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Sigve AndersenDept. of Clinical Medicine, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway; Dept. of Oncology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Samer Al-SaadDept. of Medical Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway; Dept. of Clinical Pathology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Tom DonnemDept. of Clinical Medicine, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway; Dept. of Oncology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Yury KiselevDept. of Medical Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway; Dept. of Pharmacy, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Christian Nordahl Melbø-JørgensenDept. of Medical Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Kaja SkjefstadDept. of Medical Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Lill-Tove BusundDept. of Medical Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway; Dept. of Clinical Pathology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Roy M BremnesDept. of Medical Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway; Dept. of Clinical Medicine, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Elin RichardsenDept. of Medical Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway; Dept. of Clinical Pathology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norway.
UiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease and one of the leading causes of mortality in developed countries. Specific prognostic and predictive markers for prostate cancer patients are still lacking. A causal relationship between androgens and the development of prostate cancer is generally considered biologically plausible, but androgens are not the sole effector in the complexity of prostate carcinogenesis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of progesterone receptor in tumor tissue of T1-3N0 prostate cancer patients undergoing prostatectomy.

methodsTissue microarrays from 535 patients with prostate cancer were constructed. Duplicate cores of tumor cells and tumor stromal tissue from each resected specimen were extracted. Immunohistochemistry was used to evaluate the in-situ expression of progesterone receptor.

resultsIn univariate analyses, high tumor cell density (p = 0.006) and high tumor stromal cell density level (p = 0.045) of progesterone receptor were both significantly associated with tumor progression and clinical failure. In multivariate analysis, progesterone receptor expression in tumor cells was an independent negative prognostic factor for clinical failure (HR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2-5.2, p = 0.012).

conclusionHigh progesterone receptor density in tumor cells of the prostate cancer tumor is an independent negative prognostic factor for clinical failure.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorGene ExpressionHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPatient Outcome AssessmentPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsReceptors, ProgesteroneSurvival AnalysisTreatment FailureBiomarkers, TumorReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID25723513
PMCPMC4344236
OpenAlexW2026752591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.