Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26055663›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2015

The biopsy Gleason score 3+4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect an unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3+3: looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates.

R Schiavina, M Borghesi, E Brunocilla, D Romagnoli, D Diazzi, F Giunchi, V Vagnoni, C V Pultrone, H Dababneh, A Porreca 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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.

R Schiavina1] Department of Urology, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy [2] Postgraduate Speciality School of Specialization in Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy [3] Department of Specialistic, Diagnostic and Experimental Medicine, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
M Borghesi1] Department of Urology, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy [2] Doctorate in Cardiologic, Nephro-Urologic and Thoracic Science, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
E Brunocilla1] Department of Urology, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy [2] Postgraduate Speciality School of Specialization in Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy [3] Department of Specialistic, Diagnostic and Experimental Medicine, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
D RomagnoliDepartment of Urology, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
D DiazziDepartment of Urology, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
F GiunchiPathology Service, Addarii Institute of Oncology, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
V VagnoniDepartment of Urology, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
C V Pultrone1] Department of Urology, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy [2] Doctorate in Cardiologic, Nephro-Urologic and Thoracic Science, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
H DababnehDepartment of Urology, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
A PorrecaDepartment of Urology, Policlinico Abano Terme, Padua, Italy.
M FiorentinoPathology Service, Addarii Institute of Oncology, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
G Martorana1] Department of Urology, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy [2] Postgraduate Speciality School of Specialization in Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy [3] Department of Specialistic, Diagnostic and Experimental Medicine, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess whether the addition of clinical Gleason score (Gs) 3+4 to the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria affects pathologic results in patients who are potentially suitable for active surveillance (AS) and to identify possible clinical predictors of unfavourable outcome.

methodsThree hundred and twenty-nine men who underwent radical prostatectomy with complete clinical and follow-up data and who would have fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the PRIAS protocol at the time of biopsy except for the addition of biopsy Gs=3+4 and with at least 10 cores taken have been evaluated. One experienced genitourinary pathologist selected those with real Gs=3+3 and 3+4 in only one core according to the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology criteria. The primary end point was the proportion of unfavourable outcome (nonorgan confined disease or Gs⩾4+3). Logistic regressions explored the association between preoperative characteristics and the primary end point.

resultsTwo hundred and four patients were evaluated and 46 (22.5%) patients harboured unfavourable disease at final pathology. After a median follow-up of 73.5 months, there was no cancer-specific death, and 4 (2.0%) patients had biochemical relapse. There were no significant differences in terms of high Gs, locally advanced disease, unfavourable disease and biochemical relapse-free survival among patients with clinical Gs=3+3 vs Gs=3+4. At multivariable analysis, the presence of atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) and lower number of core taken were independently associated with a higher risk of unfavourable disease.

conclusionThe inclusion of Gs=3+4 in patients suitable to AS does not enhance the risk of unfavourable disease after radical prostatectomy. Additional factors such as number of cores taken and the presence of ASAP should be considered in patients suitable for AS.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyAgedBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsROC CurveProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID26055663

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.