ReviewDer Pathologe2016
[Prostate cancer. Part 2: Review of the various tumor grading systems over the years 1966-2015 and future perspectives of the new grading of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the intratumoral heterogeneity of DNA ploidy in prostate cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- [Grading of prostate cancer].Der Pathologe · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The continued development of methods in needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer has given special emphasis to the question of the prognostic relevance of the various systems of grading. The classical purely histological grading system of Gleason has been modified several times in the past decades and cleared the way for a new grading system by the prognostic grading of Epstein. Assessment of the old and also modified combined histological and cytological grading of Mostofi, the World health Organization (WHO) and the urologic-pathological working group of prostate cancer in connection with the Gleason grading (combined Gleason-Helpap grading), has led to considerably improved rates of concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy and to improved estimations of prognosis beside its contribution to the development of a more practicable grading system for clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26792002What 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.