Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35145197›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2022

Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for "large" cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Emily Chan, Jesse K McKenney, Sarah Hawley, Dillon Corrigan, Heidi Auman, Lisa F Newcomb, Hilary D Boyer, Peter R Carroll, Matthew R Cooperberg, Eric Klein and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Current grading of prostate cancer.Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Current grading of prostate cancer. German version].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

24 authors.

Emily ChanDepartment of Pathology, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. Emily.Chan@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7290-4004
Jesse K McKenneyRobert J. Tomsich Institute of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Sarah HawleyCanary Foundation, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Dillon CorriganDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5390-0139
Heidi AumanCanary Foundation, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Lisa F NewcombFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Hilary D BoyerFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Peter R CarrollDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA.
Matthew R CooperbergDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA.
Eric KleinGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1783-0698
Ladan FazliUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Martin E GleaveUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Antonio Hurtado-CollUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Jeffry P SimkoDepartment of Pathology, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA.
Peter S NelsonFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5451-5726
Ian M ThompsonCHRISTUS Medical Center Hospital, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Maria S TretiakovaUniversity of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0819-9638
Dean TroyerEastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Lawrence D TrueUniversity of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Funda Vakar-LopezUniversity of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Daniel W LinFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
James D BrooksStanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA.
Ziding FengFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jane K NguyenRobert J. Tomsich Institute of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

TRANSCRIPTOME AND PROTEOME STRATIFICATION OF PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA PHENOTYPESP50CA097186 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI PETER S NELSON · 2002 to 2026
$58.1M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA097186
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cribriform growth pattern is well-established as an adverse pathologic feature in prostate cancer. The literature suggests "large" cribriform glands associate with aggressive behavior; however, published studies use varying definitions for "large". We aimed to identify an outcome-based quantitative cut-off for "large" vs "small" cribriform glands. We conducted an initial training phase using the tissue microarray based Canary retrospective radical prostatectomy cohort. Of 1287 patients analyzed, cribriform growth was observed in 307 (24%). Using Kaplan-Meier estimates of recurrence-free survival curves (RFS) that were stratified by cribriform gland size, we identified 0.25 mm as the optimal cutoff to identify more aggressive disease. In univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, size >0.25 mm was a significant predictor of worse RFS compared to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm, independent of pre-operative PSA, grade, stage and margin status (p < 0.001). In addition, two different subset analyses of low-intermediate risk cases (cases with Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4 = 7; and cases with Gleason score = 3 + 4 = 7/4 + 3 = 7) likewise demonstrated patients with largest cribriform diameter >0.25 mm had a significantly lower RFS relative to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm (each subset p = 0.004). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in outcomes between patients with cribriform glands ≤ 0.25 mm and patients without cribriform glands. The >0.25 mm cut-off was validated as statistically significant in a separate 419 patient, completely embedded whole-section radical prostatectomy cohort by biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, and disease specific death, even when cases with admixed Gleason pattern 5 carcinoma were excluded. In summary, our findings support reporting cribriform gland size and identify 0.25 mm as an optimal outcome-based quantitative measure for defining "large" cribriform glands. Moreover, cribriform glands >0.25 mm are associated with potential for metastatic disease independent of Gleason pattern 5 adenocarcinoma.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingProstatectomyRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35145197
PMCPMC9314256

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.