Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27124335›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016

Chromatin changes predict recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Tarjei S Hveem, Andreas Kleppe, Ljiljana Vlatkovic, Elin Ersvær, Håkon Wæhre, Birgitte Nielsen, Marte Avranden Kjær, Manohar Pradhan, Rolf Anders Syvertsen, John Arne Nesheim and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tarjei S HveemInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Andreas KleppeInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Ljiljana VlatkovicDepartment of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Elin ErsværInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Håkon WæhreInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Birgitte NielsenInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Marte Avranden KjærInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Manohar PradhanInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Rolf Anders SyvertsenInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
John Arne NesheimInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Knut LiestølDepartment of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo NO-0316, Norway.
Fritz AlbregtsenInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Håvard E DanielsenInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo NO-0424, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathological evaluations give the best prognostic markers for prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy, but the observer variance is substantial. These risk assessments should be supported and supplemented by objective methods for identifying patients at increased risk of recurrence. Markers of epigenetic aberrations have shown promising results in several cancer types and can be assessed by automatic analysis of chromatin organisation in tumour cell nuclei.

methodsA consecutive series of 317 prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy at a national hospital between 1987 and 2005 were followed for a median of 10 years (interquartile range, 7-14). On average three tumour block samples from each patient were included to account for tumour heterogeneity. We developed a novel marker, termed Nucleotyping, based on automatic assessment of disordered chromatin organisation, and validated its ability to predict recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

resultsNucleotyping predicted recurrence with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.3 (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.1-5.1). With adjustment for clinical and pathological characteristics, the HR was 2.5 (95% CI, 1.5-4.1). An updated stratification into three risk groups significantly improved the concordance with patient outcome compared with a state-of-the-art risk-stratification tool (P<0.001). The prognostic impact was most evident for the patients who were high-risk by clinical and pathological characteristics and for patients with Gleason score 7.

conclusionA novel assessment of epigenetic aberrations was capable of improving risk stratification after radical prostatectomy.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyAdenocarcinomaAgedAneuploidyCell NucleusChromatinEpigenesis, GeneticFollow-Up StudiesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalChromatin

Identifiers

PMID27124335
PMCPMC4891515
OpenAlexW2343806483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.