Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34771617›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer: The Impact of Grading Criteria and the Significance of the Amount of Intraductal Carcinoma.

Vasiliki Tzelepi, Ioanna Maria Grypari, Souzana Logotheti, Stavros Kontogiannis, Panagiotis Kallidonis, Maria Melachrinou, Vasiliki Zolota

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vasiliki TzelepiDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-9613-4681
Ioanna Maria GrypariDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-6042-6554
Souzana LogothetiDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece.
Stavros KontogiannisDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece.
Panagiotis KallidonisDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece.
Maria MelachrinouDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece.
Vasiliki ZolotaDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece.
University of Patras · GR

Funding

University of Patras 56570000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Prognostic grade group (PGG) is an important prognostic parameter in prostate cancer that guides therapeutic decisions. The cribriform pattern and intraductal carcinoma (IDC) are two histological patterns, that have additional prognostic significance. However, discrepancies exist regarding the handling of IDC according to the guidelines published by two international genitourinary pathology societies. Furthermore, whether, in addition to its presence, the amount of IDC is also of importance has not been studied before. Lastly, the handling of tertiary patterns has also been a matter of debate in the literature. (2) Methods: A total of 129 prostatectomy cases were retrieved and a detailed histopathologic analysis was performed. (3) Results: Two cases (1.6%) upgraded their PGG, when IDC was incorporated in the grading system. The presence and the amount of IDC, as well as the presence of cribriform carcinoma were associated with adverse pathologic characteristics. Interestingly, in six cases (4.7%) there was a difference in PGG when using the different guidelines regarding the handling of tertiary patterns. In total, 6.2% of the cases would be assigned a different grade depending on the guidelines followed. (4) Conclusions: These findings highlight a potential area of confusion among pathologists and clinicians and underscore the need for a consensus grading system.

Indexed as

cribriform patternGleason Scoreintraductal carcinomaprognostic grade group

Identifiers

PMID34771617
PMCPMC8582560
OpenAlexW3211325193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.