ReviewNature reviews. Urology2016
Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors for low-risk prostate cancer: A retrospective cohort study within the FinRSPC trial.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Landmarks in the evolution of prostate biopsy.Nature reviews. Urology · 2023Review
- Exploring the Value ofBiomolecules · 2021Article
- Review
- How Much Reliable Is the Current Belief on Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer?Pathology oncology research : POR · 2021Article
- Targeting the cancer lesion, not the whole prostate.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
- A prospective analysis of robotic targeted MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy using the centroid targeting approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- Article
- The effects of testosterone replacement therapy on the prostate: a clinical perspective.F1000Research · 2019Review
- A prospective clinical, cost and environmental analysis of a clinician-led virtual urology clinic.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2019Article
- The Modulating Effects of Benign Prostate Enlargement Medications on Upgrading Predictors in Patients with Gleason 6 at Biopsy.Current urology · 2017Article
- miR-129 predicts prognosis and inhibits cell growth in human prostate carcinoma.Molecular medicine reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nearly five decades following its conception, the Gleason grading system remains a cornerstone in the prognostication and management of patients with prostate cancer. In the past few years, a debate has been growing whether Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer is a clinically significant disease. Clinical, molecular and genetic research is addressing the question whether well characterized Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease has the ability to affect the morbidity and quality of life of an individual in whom it is diagnosed. The consequences of treatment of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease are considerable; few men get through their treatments without sustaining some harm. Further modification of the classification of prostate cancer and dropping the label cancer for Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease might be warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27530265What 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.