ArticleCentral European journal of urology2017
The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason grading consensus on active surveillance for prostate cancer.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Serum thymidine kinase 1 is associated with Gleason score of patients with prostate carcinoma.Oncology letters · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrent treatment plans for localized prostate carcinoma (PC) are based on core needle biopsies (CNB) classified using the Gleason score (GS). Recently, many institutions have started using the latest version of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) guideline revision from 2014 for PC grading. Interestingly, this adoption is occurring without first understanding whether the 2005 ISUP revisions had a positive clinical impact. CNB-based GS may underestimate tumor aggressiveness and, therefore, critically impact patient eligibility for active surveillance (AS). The 2005 ISUP recommendations bore a significant impact on the grading of Gleason 6 and 7 PCs - a range that is meaningful for AS. The objective of this study was to compare the concordance between GS in CNB and radical prostatectomy (RP) before and after the 2005 ISUP guideline revisions, with an emphasis on its clinical impact on AS. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a single-center, prospective observational study. CNB were performed in a standardized manner. GS of CNB and RP specimens were compared across three time periods: 1999-2005 (pre-revision), 2006-2007 (transitional period), and 2008-2015 (post-revision). AS is usually employed in patients with GS 6 or GS 7 PC. Thus, we therefore focused on the analysis of patients with CNBs of GS ≤7.
resultsBetween 1999 and 2015, 380 men with GS ≤7 PC underwent RP at our institution (median age: 62y; median PSA: 5.8 ng/ml). Of these, 231 CNB specimens were classified as GS ≤6, while 149 were GS 7.46% (pre-revision), 43% (transitional), and 54% (post-revision) of CNB with original scores ≤6 were later upgraded in corresponding RP specimens (p <0.001).
conclusionsThe 2005 ISUP GS revisions did not lower the rates of GS upgrades in RP specimens when compared to corresponding initial CNBs. Thus, these revisions did not improve AS selection. Future advances in molecular diagnostics may provide additional valuable information that facilitates patient enrollment in AS programs.
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.