Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35157140›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2022

Alternative prostate cancer grading systems incorporating percent pattern 4/5 (IQ-Gleason) and cribriform architecture (cGrade) improve prediction of outcome after radical prostatectomy.

Neslisah Seyrek, Eva Hollemans, Eleni-Rosalina Andrinopoulou, Susanne Osanto, Rob C M Pelger, Henk G van der Poel, Elise Bekers, Sebastiaan Remmers, Ivo G Schoots, Geert J L H van Leenders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Current grading of prostate cancer.Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  5. [Current grading of prostate cancer. German version].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  6. 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

10 authors.

Neslisah SeyrekDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. n.seyrek@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5998-8813
Eva HollemansDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eleni-Rosalina AndrinopoulouDepartment of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Susanne OsantoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Rob C M PelgerDepartment of Urology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Henk G van der PoelDepartment of Urology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek-Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elise BekersDepartment of Pathology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek-Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sebastiaan RemmersDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ivo G SchootsDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Geert J L H van LeendersDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Percentage Gleason pattern 4, invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (IC/IDC) and minor pattern 5 are recognized as independent parameters for prostate cancer outcome, but are not incorporated in current grade groups (GGs). Two proof-of-principle studies have proposed alternative grading schemes based on percentage Gleason pattern 4/5 (integrated quantitative Gleason score; IQ-Gleason) and IC/IDC presence (cribriform grade; cGrade). Our objective was to compare the performance of GG, IQ-Gleason and cGrade for predicting biochemical recurrence and metastasis after radical prostatectomy (RP). RP specimens of 1064 patients were pathologically reviewed and graded according to the three schemes. Discriminative power for prediction of biochemical recurrence-free (BCRFS) and metastasis-free (MFS) survival was compared using Harrell's c-index. The GG distribution at RP was 207 (19.4%) GG1, 472 (44.4%) GG2, 126 (11.8%) GG3, 140 (13.2%) GG4 and 119 (11.2%) GG5. Grading according to 5-tier IQ-Gleason and cGrade systems led to categorical shifts in 49.8% and 29.7% of cases, respectively. Continuous IQ-Gleason had the best performance for predicting BCRFS (c-index 0.743, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.715-0.771), followed by cGrade (c-index 0.738, 95%CI 0.712-0.759), 5-tier categorical IQ-Gleason (c-index 0.723, 95%CI 0.695-0.750) and GG (c-index 0.718, 95%CI 0.691-0.744). Continuous IQ-Gleason (c-index 0.834, 95%CI 0.802-0.863) and cGrade (c-index 0.834, 95%CI 0.808-0.866) both had better predictive value for MFS than categorical IQ-Gleason (c-index 0.823, 95%CI 0.788-0.857) and GG (c-index 0.806, 95%CI 0.777-0.839). In conclusion, the performance of prostate cancer grading can be improved by alternative grading schemes incorporating percent Gleason pattern 4/5 and IC/IDC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingProstateProstatectomyCribriformGleason scoreGrade groupPercentProstate cancerRadical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID35157140
PMCPMC9184433

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.