ArticleEuropean urology2016
Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort.
Article in European urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 123 citations in OpenAlex.
- The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature.World journal of urology · 2020Pooled it
- A Nationwide Descriptive Analysis of Real-World Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Japan Using the National Clinical Database.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
- Deep learning classification of significant prostate cancer on MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Biopsy Gleason score 5 + 4 predicts worse outcomes than 4 + 5 after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a nationwide multicenter cohort study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- The diagnostic accuracy of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT for recurrent prostate cancer based on individual patient attributes.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- Leveraging Machine Learning for Severity Level-Wise Biomarker Identification in Prostate Cancer Microarray Gene Expression Data.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Clinical Predictors and Risk Factors of Gleason Score Upgrade: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Impact of ISUP grade group on cancer-specific mortality in radical prostatectomy-treated prostate cancer patients with organ-confined disease.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Comparison of MRI-Based Staging and Pathologic Staging for Predicting Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2023Article
- Determination of Whether Apex or Non-Apex Prostate Cancer Is the Best Candidate for the Use of Prostate-Specific Antigen Density to Predict Pathological Grade Group Upgrading and Upstaging after Radical Prostatectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Positive family history as a predictor for disease outcomes after radical prostatectomy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer.Arab journal of urology · 2023Article
- Genomic amplifications identified by circulating tumor DNA analysis guide prognosis in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- The Continuum of Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Interpreting PSMA PET Findings in Recurrent Prostate Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
- Prognostic Utility of the Gleason Grading System Revisions and Histopathological Factors Beyond Gleason Grade.Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Whole-body MRI-based multivariate prediction model in the assessment of bone metastasis in prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Narrative review of prostate cancer grading systems: will the Gleason scores be replaced by the Grade Groups?Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- Prostate cancer grading, time to go back to the future.BJU international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNew five-tiered Gleason grade groups (GGGs) were recently proposed, in which Gleason 6 is GGG 1, Gleason 3+4 is GGG 2, Gleason 4+3 is GGG 3, Gleason 8 is GGG 4, and Gleason 9-10 is GGG 5.
objectiveTo examine the performance of the new GGGs in men with prostate cancer from a nationwide population-based cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsFrom the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, we identified 5880 men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2005 to 2007, including 4325 who had radical prostatectomy and 1555 treated with radiation therapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox proportional hazards models, and concordance indices were used to examine the relationship between the GGGs and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among men treated with surgery, the 4-yr biochemical recurrence-free survival rates were 89%, 82%, 74%, 77%, and 49% for GGG 1-5 on biopsy, and 92%, 85%, 73%, 63%, and 51% based on prostatectomy GGG, respectively. For men treated by radiation therapy, men with biopsy GGG of 1-5 had 4-yr biochemical recurrence-free survival rates of 95%, 91%, 85%, 78%, and 70%. Adjusting for preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen and clinical stage, biopsy GGGs were significant independent predictors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy. The new 5-tier system resulted in virtually no change in predictive accuracy compared with the current 3- and 4-tier classifications. Limitations include a median follow-up of 4.6 yr, precluding the ability to examine long-term oncologic outcomes.
conclusionsThe newly proposed GGGs offer a simplified, user-friendly nomenclature to aid in patient counseling, with similar predictive accuracy in a population-based setting to previous classifications. PATIENT SUMMARY: The new Gleason grade groups, ranging from 1-5, provide a simplified, user-friendly classification system to predict the risk of recurrence after prostatectomy and radiation therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.