Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30076908›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2019

Clinical Usefulness of Total Length of Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer.

Lucas W Dean, Melissa Assel, Daniel D Sjoberg, Andrew J Vickers, Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie, Ying-Bei Chen, Anuradha Gopalan, S Joseph Sirintrapun, Satish K Tickoo, James A Eastham and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Comparison of highest and overall percentage Gleason pattern 4 in prostate cancer biopsies.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Current grading of prostate cancer.Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  6. [Current grading of prostate cancer. German version].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Time to Rethink Gleason Grading.The Journal of urology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Genitourinary tumors.Journal of surgical oncology · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucas W DeanUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Melissa AsselDepartment of Epidemiology-Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Daniel D SjobergDepartment of Epidemiology-Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology-Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Hikmat A Al-AhmadieDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Ying-Bei ChenDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Anuradha GopalanDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
S Joseph SirintrapunDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Satish K TickooDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
James A EasthamUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Peter T ScardinoUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Victor E ReuterDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Behfar EhdaieUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Samson W FineDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo our knowledge the ideal methodology of quantifying secondary Gleason pattern 4 in men with Grade Group 2/Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 on biopsy remains unknown. We compared various methods of Gleason pattern 4 quantification and evaluated associations with adverse pathology findings at radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 457 men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer on biopsy subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution. Only patients with 12 or more reviewed cores were included in analysis. We evaluated 3 methods of quantifying Gleason pattern 4, including the maximum percent of Gleason pattern 4 in any single core, the overall percent of Gleason pattern 4 (Gleason pattern 4 mm/total cancer mm) and the total length of Gleason pattern 4 in mm across all cores. Adverse pathology features at radical prostatectomy were defined as Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 or greater (Grade Group 3 or greater), and any extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion and/or lymph node metastasis. A training/test set approach and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine whether Gleason pattern 4 quantification methods could aid in predicting adverse pathology.

resultsOn multivariable analysis all Gleason pattern 4 quantification methods were significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology (p <0.0001) and an increased AUC beyond the base model. The largest AUC increase was 0.044 for the total length of Gleason pattern 4 (AUC 0.728, 95% CI 0.663-0.793). Decision curve analysis demonstrated an increased clinical net benefit with the addition of Gleason pattern 4 quantification to the base model. The total length of Gleason pattern 4 clearly provided the largest net benefit.

conclusionsOur findings support the inclusion of Gleason pattern 4 quantification in the pathology reports and risk prediction models of patients with Grade Group 2/Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. The total length of Gleason pattern 4 across all cores provided the strongest benefit to predict adverse pathology features.

Indexed as

AgedBiopsyHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm GradingPrognosisProstateProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentROC CurveSeminal Vesicles

Identifiers

PMID30076908
PMCPMC6786261
OpenAlexW2885630350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.