Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34753659›Full record

ArticleUrologic oncology2022

Association of MyProstateScore (MPS) with prostate cancer grade in the radical prostatectomy specimen.

Nicholas W Eyrich, John T Wei, Yashar S Niknafs, Javed Siddiqui, Chad Ellimoottil, Simpa S Salami, Ganesh S Palapattu, Rohit Mehra, Lakshmi P Kunju, Scott A Tomlins and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urologic oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas W EyrichDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
John T WeiDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Dow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Yashar S NiknafsMichigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Javed SiddiquiDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chad EllimoottilDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Simpa S SalamiDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ganesh S PalapattuDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Rohit MehraMichigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Lakshmi P KunjuMichigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Scott A TomlinsDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Arul M ChinnaiyanDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Todd M MorganDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Jeffrey J TosoianDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: jeff.tosoian@vumc.org.
University of Michigan · USEmory University · USHoward Hughes Medical Institute · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

Tissue/InformaticsP50CA186786 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Ganesh S Palapattu · 2014 to 2026
$27.6M
Exploring Precision Oncology: From Gene Fusions to lncRNAsR35CA231996 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHINNAIYAN, ARUL M · 2018 to 2024
$6.4M
Advanced Training in Urologic OncologyT32CA180984 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Ganesh S Palapattu, VAHAKN B SHAHINIAN · 2014 to 2026
$3.4M
Discovery and qualification of transcriptomic biomarkers for the early detection of aggressive prostate cancerU01CA214170 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHINNAIYAN, ARUL M · 2016 to 2021
$3.3M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNCI NIH HHS P50 CA186786NCI NIH HHS R35 CA231996NCI NIH HHS T32 CA180984NCI NIH HHS U01 CA214170
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the association between urinary MyProstateScore (MPS) and pathologic grade group (GG) at surgery in men diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer (PCa) on biopsy.

methodsUsing an institutional biospecimen protocol, we identified men with GG1 PCa on biopsy and PSA ≤10 ng/ml who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at the University of Michigan. MPS was retrospectively calculated using prospectively collected, post-DRE urine samples. The primary outcome was upgrading on RP pathology, defined as GG ≥ 2. The associations of MPS, PSA, and PSA density (PSAD) with upgrading were assessed on univariable logistic regression, and the predictive accuracy of each marker was estimated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

resultsThere were 52 men with urinary specimens available that met study criteria, based on biopsy Gleason Grade and specimen collection. At RP, 17 men (33%) had GG1 cancer and 35 (67%) had GG ≥ 2 cancer. Preoperative MPS was significantly higher in patients with GG ≥ 2 cancer at surgery (median 37.8 [IQR, 22.2-52.4]) as compared to GG1 (19.3 [IQR, 9.2-29.4]; P = 0.001). On univariable logistic regression, increasing MPS values were significantly associated with upgrading (odds ratio 1.07 per one-unit MPS increase, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.12, P = 0.004), while PSA and PSAD were not significantly associated with upgrading. Similarly, the discriminative ability of the MPS model (AUC 0.78) for upgrading at RP was higher compared to models based on PSA (AUC 0.52) and PSAD (AUC 0.62).

conclusionsIn men diagnosed with GG1 PCa who underwent surgery, MPS was significantly associated with RP cancer grade. In this limited cohort of men, these findings suggest that MPS could help identify patients with undetected high-grade cancer. Additional studies are needed to better characterize this association.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyAgedBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorBiopsyNeoplasm gradingProstatectomyProstate-specific antigenProstatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34753659
PMCPMC10227828
OpenAlexW3205719282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.