Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32459716›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of surgical pathology2020

The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Geert J L H van Leenders, Theodorus H van der Kwast, David J Grignon, Andrew J Evans, Glen Kristiansen, Charlotte F Kweldam, Geert Litjens, Jesse K McKenney, Jonathan Melamed, Nicholas Mottet and 11 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of surgical pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 349 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
349citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

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

349 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Efficacy of [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy with and without PSMA-PET-Targeted Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Trial
  8. Prospective comparison ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

289 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Geert J L H van LeendersDepartments of Pathology.
Theodorus H van der KwastDepartment of Pathology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center.
David J GrignonDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Andrew J EvansDepartment of Laboratory Information Support Systems, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Glen KristiansenInstitute of Pathology of the University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Charlotte F KweldamDepartments of Pathology.
Geert LitjensDiagnostic Image Analysis Group and the Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jesse K McKenneyDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Jonathan MelamedDepartment of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
Nicholas MottetUrology Department, University Hospital.
Gladell P PanerDepartment of Pathology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Hemamali SamaratungaDepartment of Pathology, University of Queensland School of Medicine, and Aquesta Uropathology, St Lucia, QLD.
Ivo G SchootsRadiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam.
Jeffry P SimkoDepartment of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Toyonori TsuzukiDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Aichi Medical University, Japanese Red Cross Nagoya Daini Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Murali VarmaDepartment of Cellular Pathology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales.
Anne Y WarrenDepartment of Pathology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Thomas M WheelerDepartment of Pathology & Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Sean R WilliamsonDepartment of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System and Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI.
Kenneth A IczkowskiDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
ISUP Grading Workshop Panel Members

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Five years after the last prostatic carcinoma grading consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), accrual of new data and modification of clinical practice require an update of current pathologic grading guidelines. This manuscript summarizes the proceedings of the ISUP consensus meeting for grading of prostatic carcinoma held in September 2019, in Nice, France. Topics brought to consensus included the following: (1) approaches to reporting of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 quantities, and minor/tertiary patterns, (2) an agreement to report the presence of invasive cribriform carcinoma, (3) an agreement to incorporate intraductal carcinoma into grading, and (4) individual versus aggregate grading of systematic and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies. Finally, developments in the field of artificial intelligence in the grading of prostatic carcinoma and future research perspectives were discussed.

Indexed as

BiopsyCarcinomaCarcinoma, DuctalConsensusHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm InvasivenessPathology, ClinicalPredictive Value of TestsProstatic NeoplasmsUrology

Identifiers

PMID32459716
PMCPMC7382533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.