ArticleThe world journal of men's health2021
Predicting Insignificant Prostate Cancer: Analysis of the Pathological Outcomes of Candidates for Active Surveillance according to the Pre-International Society of Urological Pathology (Pre-ISUP) 2014 Era
Article in The world journal of men's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considerations on current and future issues related to reproducibility and accuracy in prostate cancer grading.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the difference in the prediction accuracy with an active surveillance (AS) protocol between two eras (pre-International Society of Urological Pathology [pre-ISUP]-2014 MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 118 candidates for AS who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2009 and 2017. We divided our patients into two groups (group 1 [n=57], operation date 2009-2015; group 2 [n=61], operation date 2016-2017). Pathologic slides in group 1 were reviewed to distinguish men with cribriform pattern (CP) because the determination of Gleason scores in old era had been based on pre-ISUP2014 classification. Postoperative outcomes in the two eras were analyzed twice: first, all men in group 1
resultsThe proportion of men with insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa) was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2 (36.8%
conclusionsThe accuracy of the AS protocol has been affected by the coexistence of CPs and pure Gleason 6 tumors in the pre-ISUP2014 era. We suggest to use only contemporary (post-ISUP2014) data to analyze the accuracy with AS protocols in future studies.
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.