Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35082531›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2022

Prognostic Utility of the Gleason Grading System Revisions and Histopathological Factors Beyond Gleason Grade.

Renata Zelic, Francesca Giunchi, Jonna Fridfeldt, Jessica Carlsson, Sabina Davidsson, Luca Lianas, Cecilia Mascia, Daniela Zugna, Luca Molinaro, Per Henrik Vincent and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

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

16 authors.

Renata ZelicClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8842-5964
Francesca GiunchiPathology Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Jonna FridfeldtDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Jessica CarlssonDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8457-7592
Sabina DavidssonDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Luca LianasData-Intensive Computing Division, Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia (CRS4), Pula, Italy.
Cecilia MasciaData-Intensive Computing Division, Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia (CRS4), Pula, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8952-725X
Daniela ZugnaCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, and CPO-Piemonte, Turin, Italy.
Luca MolinaroDivision of Pathology, A.O. Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Per Henrik VincentDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gianluigi Zanetti *Data-Intensive Computing Division, Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia (CRS4), Pula, Italy.
Ove AndrénDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Lorenzo RichiardiCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, and CPO-Piemonte, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0316-9402
Olof AkreDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Michelangelo FiorentinoPathology Service, Maggiore Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Andreas PetterssonClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) revised the Gleason system in 2005 and 2014. The impact of these changes on prostate cancer (PCa) prognostication remains unclear.

objectiveTo evaluate if the ISUP 2014 Gleason score (GS) predicts PCa death better than the pre-2005 GS, and if additional histopathological information can further improve PCa death prediction. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe conducted a case-control study nested among men in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden diagnosed with non-metastatic PCa 1998-2015. We included 369 men who died from PCa (cases) and 369 men who did not (controls). Two uro-pathologists centrally re-reviewed biopsy ISUP 2014 Gleason grading, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern, comedonecrosis, perineural invasion, intraductal, ductal and mucinous carcinoma, percentage Gleason 4, inflammation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and post-atrophic hyperplasia. Pre-2005 GS was back-transformed using i) information on cribriform pattern and/or poorly formed glands and ii) the diagnostic GS from the registry. Models were developed using Firth logistic regression and compared in terms of discrimination (AUC).

resultsThe ISUP 2014 GS (AUC = 0.808) performed better than the pre-2005 GS when back-transformed using only cribriform pattern (AUC = 0.785) or both cribriform and poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.792), but not when back-transformed using only poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.800). Similarly, the ISUP 2014 GS performed better than the diagnostic GS (AUC = 0.808 vs 0.781). Comedonecrosis (AUC = 0.811), HGPIN (AUC = 0.810) and number of cores with ≥50% cancer (AUC = 0.810) predicted PCa death independently of the ISUP 2014 GS.

conclusionThe Gleason Grading revisions have improved PCa death prediction, likely due to classifying cribriform patterns, rather than poorly formed glands, as Gleason 4. Comedonecrosis, HGPIN and number of cores with ≥50% cancer further improve PCa death discrimination slightly.

Indexed as

Gleason scorehistopathologyprognosisprognostic markersprostate cancervirtual microscopy

Identifiers

PMID35082531
PMCPMC8784949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.