Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26563277›Full record

ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2016

The Significance of Accurate Determination of Gleason Score for Therapeutic Options and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer.

Burkhard Helpap, Daniel Ringli, Jens Tonhauser, Immanuel Poser, Jürgen Breul, Heidrun Gevensleben, Hans-Helge Seifert

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Grading System for Invasive Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma: A Proposal From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2020
    Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Burkhard HelpapDepartment of Pathology, Hegau-Bodensee Hospital of Singen, PO Box 720, 78207, Singen, Germany. burkhard.helpap@hbh-kliniken.de.
Daniel RingliDepartment of Pathology, Hegau-Bodensee Hospital of Singen, PO Box 720, 78207, Singen, Germany.
Jens TonhauserDepartment of Urology, Hegau-Bodensee Hospital of Singen, Singen, Germany.
Immanuel PoserDepartment of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Loretto Hospital, Freiburg, Germany.
Jürgen BreulDepartment of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Loretto Hospital, Freiburg, Germany.
Heidrun GevenslebenInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Hans-Helge SeifertDepartment of Urology, Hegau-Bodensee Hospital of Singen, Singen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Gleason score (GS) to date remains one of the most reliable prognostic predictors in prostate cancer (PCa). However, the majority of studies supporting its prognostic relevance were performed prior to its modification by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in 2005. Furthermore, the combination of Gleason grading and nuclear/nucleolar subgrading (Helpap score) has been shown to essentially improve grading concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. This prompted us to investigate the modified GS and combigrading (Gleason/Helpap score) in association with clinicopathological features, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and survival. Core needle biopsies and corresponding RP specimens from 580 patients diagnosed with PCa between 2005 and 2010 were evaluated. According to the modified GS, the comparison between biopsy and RP samples resulted in an upgrading from GS 6 to GS 7a and GS 7b in 65% and 19%, respectively. Combigrading further resulted in an upgrading from low grade (GS 6/2a) to intermediate grade PCa (GS 6/2b) in 11.1% and from intermediate grade (GS 6/2b) to high grade PCa (GS 7b/2b) in 22.6%. Overall, well-differentiated PCa (GS 6/2a) was detected in 2.8% of RP specimens, while intermediate grade (GS 6/2b and GS 7a/2b) and high grade cancers (≥ GS 7b) accounted for 39.5% and 57.4% of cases, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, BCR was observed in 17.6% of patients with intermediate (9.8%) or high grade PCa (30.2%), while PSA relapse did not occur in GS 6/2a PCa. In conclusion, adding nuclear/nucleolar subgrading to the modified GS allowed for a more accurate distinction between low and intermediate grade PCa, therefore offering a valuable tool for the identification of patients eligible for active surveillance (AS).

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBiopsy, NeedleCell NucleolusCell NucleusFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsSurvival RateCarcinomaGleason and combigradingPrognosisProstatePSA progressSurvival

Identifiers

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.