ArticleCancer medicine2021
Analysis of risk factors for Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy in a Chinese cohort.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting the upgrading of the International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group in nonclinically significant prostate cancer: a multicenter observational study.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Observational
- Risk analysis of adverse pathological changes in cT2cN0M0 prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Results from a population-based study.Asian journal of urology · 2025Article
- Prostate cancer lesions in transition zone exhibit a higher propensity for pathological upgrading in radical prostatectomy.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Establishing a model predicting Gleason grade group upgrading in prostate cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- Cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy versus transrectal ultrasonography-guided systematic biopsy: comparison and analysis of the risk of Gleason score upgrading.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- Risk factors for Gleason score upgrade from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2024Review
- Prediction model of gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy based on a bayesian network.BMC urology · 2023Article
- The potential of high-order features of routine blood test in predicting the prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer.BMC cancer · 2023Review
- Influence of Active Surveillance on Gleason Score Upgrade and Prognosis in Low- and Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Analysis of risk factors for Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy in a Chinese cohort.Cancer medicine · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo study the risk factors of Gleason score upgrading (GSU) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a Chinese cohort.
methodsThe data of 637 patients who underwent prostate biopsy and RP in our hospital from January 2014 to January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, testosterone (TT) level, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (ELR), aspartate aminotransferase/alanine transaminase (AST/ALT) ratio, clinical stage, the biopsy method, and pathological characteristics of specimens after biopsy and RP were collected for all patients. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the risk factors of GSU after RP. The predictive efficacy was verified with the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We performed the analysis separately in the overall cohort and in the cohort with Gleason score (GS) = 6.
resultsIn the overall cohort, 177 patients (27.79%) had GSU, and in the GS = 6 cohort, 68 patients (60.18%) had GSU. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that in the overall cohort, clinical stage ≥T2c (OR = 3.201, p < 0.001), the number of positive cores ≥3 (OR = 0.435, p = 0.04), and positive rate of biopsy (OR = 0.990, p = 0.016) can affect whether GS is upgraded, and the AUC of the combination of the three indicators for predicting the occurrence of GSU was 0.627. In the GS = 6 cohort, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that clinical stage ≥T2c (OR = 4.690, p = 0.001) was a risk factor for GSU, and the AUC predicted to occur GSU is 0.675.
conclusionClinical stage ≥T2c, the number of positive cores <3, and lower positive rate of biopsy are the risk factors of GSU. This study may provide some references for clinicians to judge the accuracy of biopsy pathological grading and formulate treatment strategies, but the specific effect still needs clinical practice certification.
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.