ArticleHippokratia
Validation of revised Epstein's criteria for insignificant prostate cancer prediction in a Greek subpopulation.
Article in Hippokratia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03615131 (Accuracy of Multi-parametric Prostate MRI and MRI-targeted, Ultrasound-navigated Prostate Fusion Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Accuracy of Multi-parametric Prostate MRI and MRI-targeted, Ultrasound-navigated Prostate Fusion Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer:
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Contemporary Selection Criteria in Prostate Cancer Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Prostate Cancer Detection with mpMRI According to PI-RADS v2 Compared with Systematic MRI/TRUS-Fusion Biopsy: A Prospective Study.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Necessity of differentiating small (< 10 mm) and large (≥ 10 mm) PI-RADS 4.World journal of urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent treatment options for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) are applicable after stratifying patients according to various classification criteria. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the revised Epstein's criteria for insignificant PCa prediction in a Greek subpopulation.
methodsDuring a 4-year-period, 172 Cretan patients were submitted to radical retropubic prostatectomy in our institution. 23 out of them met the revised Epstein's criteria for the presence of clinically insignificant PCa (clinical stage T1c, prostate specific antigen density < 0.15 ng/ml/g, absence of Gleason pattern 4-5, <3 positive biopsy cores, presence of <50% tumor per core) during pre-treatment evaluation and were retrospectively included in the study. Post-surgery outcomes were evaluated including pathological stage, surgical margins and Gleason score upgrade.
resultsOrgan confined disease and insignificant PCa were predicted with a 74% and 31% accuracy, respectively. These figures are remarkably lower than those derived from similar studies worldwide.
conclusionsDue to the high variation in the revised Epstein's criteria prediction accuracy observed worldwide, the development and implementation of novel tools/nomograms with a greater predictive accuracy is still warranted. Hippokratia 2015, 19 (1): 30-33.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26435643PMC4574582What OpenQuestion holds
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.