Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29213105›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2018

Preoperative prostate health index predicts poor pathologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-detected low-risk patients prostate cancer: results from a Chinese prospective cohort.

Bo Tang, Cheng-Tao Han, Xiao-Lin Lu, Fang-Ning Wan, Cui-Zhu Zhang, Yao Zhu, Ding-Wei Ye

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2018. 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases Best of China, 2018.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2019
    Article
  7. Prostate Health Index (Asian journal of andrology
    Observational
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.

Bo TangDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Cheng-Tao HanDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Xiao-Lin LuDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Fang-Ning WanDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Cui-Zhu ZhangDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Yao ZhuDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. mailzhuyao@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7950-6669
Ding-Wei YeDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. yedingwei1963@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the performance of the prostate health index (PHI) in predicting pathologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in Chinese patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

methodsOf all consecutive patients who underwent RP in one tertiary center from September 2013 to January 2017, we prospectively examined the data of 140 patients with low-risk PCa based on the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria. All patients were eligible for active surveillance, but underwent RP. Clinical and pathological data were collected. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations between the PHI and outcome of RP. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the accuracy of different models. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the potential clinical usefulness of making model-based decisions.

resultsOnly 44 (31.4%) patients were finally confirmed to have organ-confined Gleason ≤6 PCa. A low PHI was significantly predictive of organ-confined Gleason ≤6 PCa (p = 0.001), while tPSA and f/tPSA were not associated with final pathology. In the multivariate analyses, addition of the PHI significantly increased the predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.767, 95% Cl 0.685-0.849, p < 0.001).

conclusionThe PRIAS criteria for active surveillance may not suitable for Chinese patients with PCa. Addition of the PHI to the PRIAS models improved the prognostic performance. If confirmed in future larger and multicenter studies, PHI may help us to identify patients eligible for AS in China.

Indexed as

PrognosisAgedBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPreoperative PeriodProstateProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk FactorsProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.