ArticleWorld journal of urology2018
Evaluation of clinical staging of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (eighth edition) for prostate cancer.
Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protein arginine methyltransferase 7 regulates the cell cycle and promotes the progression of prostate cancer.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Analysis of the surgical approach in prostate cancer staging: results from the surveillance, epidemiology and end results program.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Modified the 8th AJCC staging system for patients with advanced prostate cancer: a study based on SEER database.BMC urology · 2022Article
- The homogeneous and heterogeneous risk factors for the morbidity and prognosis of bone metastasis in patients with prostate cancer.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) for clinical staging of prostate cancer based upon Surveillance, Epidemiology and, End Results (SEER) database. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients diagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma during 2004-2009 without any surgical treatment to the primary site were selected from the SEER registry. Excluded were cases with incomplete or unavailable staging, PSA and Gleason score information.
resultsA total of 144,443 cases were identified. The median follow-up time was 84 months. The median age at diagnosis was 69 years, and median PSA was 7 ng/ml. CSS at 10th years was 96.2% for cT2a and 86.2% for cT2b/2c, respectively. The survival differences between clinical stage cT2a and cT2b/2c still had statistical significance (P < 0.001). For patients with grade group 1, there was no statistically significant difference for CCS between the cT2a and cT1 (P = 0.310), and between the subgroup of cT1/cT2a with 10 ng/ml ≤ PSA < 20 ng/ml and the subgroup of cT2b/2c with PSA < 20 ng/ml (P = 0.126), respectively. The CSS of IIIA (T1/2 with PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml) was less than IIC (P < 0.001), which has worst prognosis within stage I/II. The prognosis of T1/2 stage with Gleason score grade group 5 and PSA < 20 ng/ml was not only worse than AJCC IIC (P < 0.001) but also worse than AJCC IIIB (P < 0.001).
conclusionIt is necessary to maintain a three-tier system to subdivide T2 disease clinically. For patients with grade group 1, cT2a and cT1 could merge into one group. Organ-confined disease with PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml or grade group 5 should be separated from stage II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.