ArticleEuropean urology2018
Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.
Article in European urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in imaging and artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis and biopsy guidance in prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Reclassification of prostate cancer on first confirmatory prostate biopsy in men under active surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Central European journal of urology · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a model for predicting the risk of prostate cancer.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- Is Active Surveillance Too Active?Current urology reports · 2023Review
- Risk of progression following a negative biopsy in prostate cancer active surveillance.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Association between previous negative biopsies and lower rates of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.Cancer · 2022Article
- Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes.World journal of urology · 2022Review
- Confirmatory multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at recruitment confers prolonged stay in active surveillance and decreases the rate of upgrading at follow-up.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2020Article
- Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.The Journal of urology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany patients who are on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer will have surveillance prostate needle biopsies (PNBs) without any cancer evident.
objectiveTo define the association between negative surveillance PNBs and risk of reclassification on AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsAll men were enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) between 2008 and 2016. Men were included if they had Gleason ≤3+4 prostate cancer and <34% core involvement ratio at diagnosis. Men were prescribed surveillance PNBs at 12 and 24 mo after diagnosis and then every 24 mo. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason grade and/or an increase in the ratio of biopsy cores to cancer to ≥34%. PNB outcomes were defined as follows: (1) no cancer on biopsy, (2) cancer without reclassification, or (3) reclassification. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the risk of reclassification. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 657 men met inclusion criteria. On first surveillance PNB, 214 (32%) had no cancer, 282 (43%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 161 (25%) reclassified. Among those who did not reclassify, 313 had a second PNB. On second PNB, 120 (38%) had no cancer, 139 (44%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 54 (17%) reclassified. In a multivariable analysis, significant predictors of decreased future reclassification after the first PNB were no cancer on PNB (hazard ratio [HR]=0.50, p=0.008), lower serum prostate-specific antigen, larger prostate size, and lower body mass index. A finding of no cancer on the second PNB was also associated with significantly decreased future reclassification in a multivariable analysis (HR=0.15, p=0.003), regardless of the first PNB result. The major limitation of this study is a relatively small number of patients with long-term follow-up.
conclusionsMen who have a surveillance PNB with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on AS in the PASS cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring AS protocols. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men on active surveillance for prostate cancer who have a biopsy showing no cancer are at a decreased risk of having worse disease in the future. This may have an impact on how frequently biopsies are required to be performed in the future.
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.