Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26047652›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2015

Final pathohistology after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (AS).

Ekaterina Lellig, Christian Gratzke, Alexander Kretschmer, Christian Stief

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ekaterina LelligDepartment of Urology, Institution Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany, ekaterina.lellig@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Christian Gratzke
Alexander Kretschmer
Christian Stief
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the current study was to determine in retrospect how many of a group of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were correctly classified with an insignificant prostate carcinoma by means of preoperative diagnostics. Furthermore, we are aiming at finding preoperative parameters which predict an insignificant prostate carcinoma with higher accuracy. The current inclusion parameters of AS will be verified with regard to their reliability, and we will discuss the possibility of improving their prediction accuracy.

methodsWe examined the data of 308 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with a clinically insignificant prostate carcinoma and therefore would be suited for AS, but opted for a radical prostatectomy. According to the literature(1), the following inclusion criteria were chosen for our evaluation: a proven prostate carcinoma, detected by either ultrasonically guided transrectal core needle biopsy (cT1c) with at least six obtained samples and with a maximum of two positive samples on one side and a less than a 50 % tumor rate per sample, or a 5 % or lower tumor rate found in the tissue obtained by transurethral prostate resection (cT1a). The PSA value in all cases was below 10 ng/ml and the Gleason Score ≤6. The probability of a preoperative "undergrading" or "understaging" was determined as a function of preoperative parameters like Gleason Score, PSA value, the number of collected samples and positive samples obtained by core needle biopsy, prostate volume, and PSA density. Based on the available preoperative data, we developed and tested several regression models for the identification of independent factors for upgrading and upstaging.

resultsWithin the examined patient population, 232 of 308 patients (75 %) were, according to their final prostate histology, diagnosed with a stage ≥pT2b prostate carcinoma. Eight percentage of the patients who had undergone surgery had a stage ≥pT3a carcinoma, and 118 of 308 (38 %) had a Gleason Score of 6 or higher. Positive lymph nodes and an infiltration of the seminal vesicle each occurred in 1 % of the cases. Histopathologic positive margins of resection existed in 33 of 308 patients (11 %). Independent factors for upgrading and upstaging a prostate volume of <50 ml and a preoperative Gleason Score of ≤6 were identified.

conclusionThe presented results show that the current inclusion criteria for AS are insufficient. For many patients, the beginning of the necessary therapy is delayed. According to our data, the prostate volume, the preoperative Gleason Score, and the number of positive samples obtained by transrectal core needle biopsy have the highest predictive power with regard to aggressiveness and expansion of the tumor. Despite the consideration of all these preoperative parameters, the differentiation of the prostate carcinomas was underrated in a third of all cases. The expansion of the tumor within the prostate was underrated even in three fourths of the cases.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyWatchful WaitingBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleCarcinomaDisease ProgressionHumansKallikreinsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPatient SelectionProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID26047652
OpenAlexW625519750

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.