Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32190323›Full record

ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2020

Factors predicting pathological upgrading after prostatectomy in patients with Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer based on opinion-matched biopsy specimens.

Yuki Maruyama, Takuya Sadahira, Motoo Araki, Yosuke Mitsui, Koichiro Wada, Acosta Gonzalez Herik Rodrigo, Kazuaki Munetomo, Yasuyuki Kobayashi, Masami Watanabe, Hiroyuki Yanai and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Gleason Regrading After Prostatectomy-Results From the Irish Prostate Cancer Outcome Research (IPCOR) Situated in the International Context.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuki MaruyamaDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Takuya SadahiraDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Motoo ArakiDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Yosuke MitsuiDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Koichiro WadaDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Acosta Gonzalez Herik RodrigoDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Kazuaki MunetomoDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Yasuyuki KobayashiDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Masami WatanabeDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Hiroyuki YanaiDepartment of Pathology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Toyohiko WatanabeDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Yasutomo NasuDepartment of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.
Okayama University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study investigated the concordance between Gleason scores assigned to prostate biopsy specimens by outside pathologists and a urological pathology expert, and determined the risk of upgrading between opinion-matched Gleason grade group (GGG) 1 biopsy specimens and radical prostatectomy specimens. Between January 2012 and May 2018, 733 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients whose original biopsy specimens from outside hospitals were reviewed by a urological pathology expert Okayama University Hospital were included. Patients who had received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were excluded. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of upgrading among GGG 1 diagnoses. A total of 403 patients were included in the present study. Agreement in GGG between initial and second-opinion diagnoses was present in 256 cases (63.5%). Although opinion-matched cases improved concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy specimen GGG compared with single-opinion cases (initial, 35.2%; second-opinion, 36.5%; matched, 41.4%), 71% (56/79) of cases classified as GGG 1 were upgraded after prostatectomy. Multivariate analysis revealed that prostate-specific antigen density and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 score were significant predictors of upgrading (odds ratio, 1.10; P=0.01; and odds ratio, 1.88; P=0.03, respectively). In conclusion, the GGG concordance rate between needle-core biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens was higher in opinion-matched cases; however, 71% of opinion-matched GGG1 cases were upgraded after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urologists should propose treatment strategies or further biopsy rather than active surveillance for patients with GGG1 and a high PSAD and/or PI-RADS score.

Indexed as

biopsyGleason gradeprostate cancerradical prostatectomysecond opinion

Identifiers

PMID32190323
PMCPMC7057918
OpenAlexW3004853427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.