Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27273062›Full record

ArticleThe Prostate2016

A Novel System for Estimating Residual Disease and Pathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment of Prostate Cancer.

Claire Murphy, Lawrence True, Funda Vakar-Lopez, Jing Xia, Roman Gulati, Bruce Montgomery, Maria Tretiakova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Prostate, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Histopathology of Prostate Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2017
    Review
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.

Claire MurphyDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Lawrence TrueDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Funda Vakar-LopezDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Jing XiaFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Roman GulatiFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Bruce MontgomeryDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Maria TretiakovaDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

TRANSCRIPTOME AND PROTEOME STRATIFICATION OF PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA PHENOTYPESP50CA097186 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI John Kyung Lee · 2002 to 2026
$58.1M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA097186
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathologic variables that characterize response of prostate carcinoma to current neoadjuvant therapy have not been characterized in detail. This study reports (i) the histological features of prostate cancer treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide and inter-pathologist variance in identifying these features, and (ii) the effect of the novel androgen deprivation agents on residual cancer volume.

methodsWe reviewed sections of prostatectomies from 37 patients treated with neoadjuvant agents and 22 untreated patients, tabulated the frequency of nine features of cancer (intact cancer glands, isolated cancer cells, poorly formed glands, cribriform architecture, clear spaces, intraductal carcinoma, solid sheets of cancer cells, prominent nucleoli, and previously described ABC grouping) and two features of benign glands (prominent basal cells and coalescent corpora amylacea). We used several methods, including a novel metric (visual grid system), to estimate residual tumor volume.

resultsThe most highly reproducible features were ABC grouping (κ = 0.56-0.7), presence of intraductal carcinoma (κ = 0.34-0.72), cribriform architecture (κ = 0.42-0.68), solid sheets of tumor cells (κ = 0.44-0.56), and coalescent corpora amylacea (κ = 0.4-0.54). Among poorly reproducible features were prominent nucleoli (κ = 0.03-0.11), clear spaces (κ = 0.05-0.07), and poorly formed cancer glands (κ = 0.02-0.1). Determination of tumor mass was excellent regardless of the method used-maximum tumor size (κ = 0.9-0.94), tumor area (κ = 0.94-0.96), and grid-based tumor cellularity (κ = 0.9).

conclusionsWe propose using a set of parameters including maximum tumor size, tumor area/volume, cellularity, volume, and ABC grouping for evaluating radical prostatectomies post-neoadjuvant therapy. Prostate 76:1285-1292, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

HumansMaleNeoadjuvant TherapyProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsTreatment Outcomecellularityinterobserver variabilityneoadjuvantprostate cancerreproducibilityresidual disease

Identifiers

PMID27273062
PMCPMC4988926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.