Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26166626›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology2016

A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

Jonathan I Epstein, Michael J Zelefsky, Daniel D Sjoberg, Joel B Nelson, Lars Egevad, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Andrew J Vickers, Anil V Parwani, Victor E Reuter, Samson W Fine and 7 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04873427 (In Situ Clonal Heterogeneity in Prostatic Diagnostic Biopsies), which is not on this map. Cited by 619 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
619citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
105.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04873427 terminatednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

In Situ Clonal Heterogeneity in Prostatic Diagnostic Biopsies: Impact on Prostate Cancer Evolution and Clinical Outcome. A Retrospective, Proof of Concept Study

TypeobservationalSponsorClinica Luganese MoncuccoRan2021 to 2023Enrolled40ConditionsProstate Cancer, Genetic PredispositionArmsclonal heterogeneity evaluation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

619 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,346 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Prototype-based AI triage for 3D pathology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article

559 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonathan I EpsteinThe Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: jepstein@jhmi.edu.
Michael J ZelefskyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Daniel D SjobergMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Joel B NelsonUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Lars EgevadKarolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Cristina Magi-GalluzziCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Andrew J VickersMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Anil V ParwaniUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Victor E ReuterMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Samson W FineMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
James A EasthamMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Peter WiklundKarolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Misop HanThe Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Chandana A ReddyCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Jay P CiezkiCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Tommy NybergKarolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Eric A KleinCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USCleveland Clinic · USKarolinska Institutet · SEJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite revisions in 2005 and 2014, the Gleason prostate cancer (PCa) grading system still has major deficiencies. Combining of Gleason scores into a three-tiered grouping (6, 7, 8-10) is used most frequently for prognostic and therapeutic purposes. The lowest score, assigned 6, may be misunderstood as a cancer in the middle of the grading scale, and 3+4=7 and 4+3=7 are often considered the same prognostic group.

objectiveTo verify that a new grading system accurately produces a smaller number of grades with the most significant prognostic differences, using multi-institutional and multimodal therapy data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsBetween 2005 and 2014, 20,845 consecutive men were treated by radical prostatectomy at five academic institutions; 5501 men were treated with radiotherapy at two academic institutions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcome was based on biochemical recurrence (BCR). The log-rank test assessed univariable differences in BCR by Gleason score. Separate univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards used four possible categorizations of Gleason scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the surgery cohort, we found large differences in recurrence rates between both Gleason 3+4 versus 4+3 and Gleason 8 versus 9. The hazard ratios relative to Gleason score 6 were 1.9, 5.1, 8.0, and 11.7 for Gleason scores 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9-10, respectively. These differences were attenuated in the radiotherapy cohort as a whole due to increased adjuvant or neoadjuvant hormones for patients with high-grade disease but were clearly seen in patients undergoing radiotherapy only. A five-grade group system had the highest prognostic discrimination for all cohorts on both univariable and multivariable analysis. The major limitation was the unavoidable use of prostate-specific antigen BCR as an end point as opposed to cancer-related death.

conclusionsThe new PCa grading system has these benefits: more accurate grade stratification than current systems, simplified grading system of five grades, and lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy and validated a new grading system with more accurate grade stratification than current systems, including a simplified grading system of five grades and a lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAgedHumansKallikreinsKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm GradingPredictive Value of TestsProportional Hazards ModelsProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapyReproducibility of ResultsKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific AntigenGleason gradeGleason score

Identifiers

PMID26166626
PMCPMC5002992
OpenAlexW1545430154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.