ArticleProstate international2015
Clinical significance of single microscopic focus of adenocarcinoma at prostate biopsy.
Article in Prostate international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProstate cancer (PC) is one of the most common cancer and an important reason of cancer specific death. The incidence of patients who diagnosed at low stage increased because of widespread using Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing. We evaluated the patients who were diagnosed single microscopic focus of adenocarcinoma and treated radical prostatectomy at final pathology.
methodsThe patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy between January 2004 and January 2012 were enrolled retrospectively. We extracted the patients who were diagnosed single microscopic focus of adenocarcinoma and treated with RP. Single microscopic adenocarcinoma was defined as one single focus measuring 3 mm or less, well differentiated (Gleason ≤6) adenocarcinoma. 37 patients were included at the study. Clinical data; including age, serum PSA levels, PSA density and prior biopsy and prostatectomy specimen results were recorded. In pathological examination; high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMW-CK), p63, and alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) were used for differential diagnosis.
resultsThe patients' ages were between 42 and 77 with a mean age of 64.9 ± 7.57 years. Mean PSA levels and prostate volumes were 8.03 ± 5.21 ng/ml and 54 ± 25.51 cc. T0, T2a, T2c and T3a were reported in 2 patients, 17 patients, 17 patients and 1 patient after pathological evaluation. According to the Gleason grading system; 6 patients were 7 (3 + 4), one patient was 7 (4 + 3), one patient was 5 (3 + 2) and 27 patients were 6 (3 + 3).
conclusionSmall volume of cancer at prostate biopsy is not necessarily small cancer in radical prostatectomy. The treatment choice may be over or under treatment for some patients, so the patients must be informed when choosing the treatment.
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.