Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30248225›Full record

ArticleBJU international2019

Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance.

Deborah R Kaye, Ji Qi, Todd M Morgan, Susan Linsell, Kevin B Ginsburg, Brian R Lane, James E Montie, Michael L Cher, David C Miller, Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04978519 (Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Cryotherapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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.

NCT04978519 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Cryotherapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2021 to 2025Enrolled16ConditionsProstate CancerArmsCryotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
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

10 authors.

Deborah R KayeDow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3868-6920
Ji QiDow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Todd M MorganUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Susan LinsellDow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Kevin B GinsburgDepartment of Urology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Brian R LaneSpectrum Health Urology, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1084-1519
James E MontieDow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michael L CherDepartment of Urology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
David C MillerDow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative

Funding

Advanced Training in Urologic OncologyT32CA180984 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Ganesh S Palapattu, VAHAKN B SHAHINIAN · 2014 to 2026
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA180984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the association between National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk, number of positive biopsy cores, age, and early confirmatory test results on pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy (RP), in order to better understand whether early confirmatory testing and better risk stratification are necessary for all men with Grade Group (GG) 1 cancers who are considering active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND

methodsWe identified men in Michigan initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer, from January 2012 to November 2017, who had a RP within 1 year of diagnosis. Our endpoints were: (i) ≥GG2 cancer at RP and (ii) adverse pathology (≥GG3 and/or ≥pT3a). We compared upgrading according to NCCN risk, number of positive biopsy cores, and age. Last, we examined if confirmatory test results were associated with upgrading or adverse pathology at RP.

resultsAmongst 1966 patients with GG1 cancer at diagnosis, the rates of upgrading to ≥GG2 and adverse pathology were 40% and 59% (P < 0.001), and 10% and 17% (P = 0.003) for patients with very-low- and low-risk cancers, respectively. Upgrading by volume ranged from 49% to 67% for ≥GG2, and 16% to 23% for adverse pathology. Generally, more patients aged ≥70 vs <70 years had adverse pathology. Unreassuring confirmatory test results had a higher likelihood of adverse pathology than reassuring tests (35% vs 18%, P = 0.017).

conclusionsUpgrading and adverse pathology are common amongst patients initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer. Early use of confirmatory testing may facilitate the identification of patients with more aggressive disease ensuring improved risk classification and safer selection of patients for AS.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyProstatectomyWatchful WaitingAdultAgedClinical Decision-MakingDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingDigital Rectal ExaminationHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPatient SelectionProspective StudiesProstateProstatic Neoplasmsactive surveillanceconfirmatory testing#PCSMprostate cancer#UroOnc

Identifiers

PMID30248225
PMCPMC6944205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.