Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35365851›Full record

ArticleThe Prostate2022

Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable-risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates.

Gabriele Sorce, Rocco Simone Flammia, Benedikt Hoeh, Francesco Chierigo, Lukas Hohenhorst, Andrea Panunzio, Armando Stabile, Giorgio Gandaglia, Zhe Tian, Derya Tilki and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Prostate, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

19 authors at 9 institutions in 9 countries.

Gabriele SorceDepartment of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2436-2412
Rocco Simone FlammiaDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Benedikt HoehDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4238-6584
Francesco ChierigoDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Lukas HohenhorstDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Andrea PanunzioDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Armando StabileDepartment of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Giorgio GandagliaDepartment of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Zhe TianDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Derya TilkiDepartment of Urology, Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7033-1380
Carlo TerroneDepartment of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Michele GallucciDepartment of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Felix K H ChunDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, Verona, Italy.
Fred SaadDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA.
Francesco MontorsiDepartment of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Alberto BrigantiDepartment of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Pierre I KarakiewiczDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITUniversité de Montréal · CAGoethe University Frankfurt · DEPoliclinico Umberto I · ITUniversity of Verona · ITAl-Ahliyya Amman University · JOKoç University · TRUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe tested for upgrading (Gleason grade group [GGG] ≥ 4) and/or upstaging to non-organ-confined stage ([NOC] ≥ pT3/pN1) in intermediate unfavorable-risk (IU) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy, since both change the considerations for dose and/or type of radiotherapy (RT) and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

methodsWe relied on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010-2015). Proportions of (a) upgrading, (b) upstaging, or (c) upgrading and/or upstaging were tabulated and tested in multivariable logistic regression models.

resultsWe identified 7269 IU PCa patients. Upgrading was recorded in 479 (6.6%) and upstaging in 2398 (33.0%), for a total of 2616 (36.0%) upgraded and/or upstaged patients, who no longer fulfilled the IU grade and stage definition. Prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, biopsy GGG, and percentage of positive cores, neither individually nor in multivariable logistic regression models, discriminated between upgraded and/or upstaged patients versus others.

conclusionsIU PCa patients showed very high (36%) upgrading and/or upstaging proportion. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of those were upstaged to NOC. Conversely, very few were upgraded to GGG ≥ 4. In consequence, more than one-third of IU PCa patients treated with RT may be exposed to suboptimal dose and/or type of RT and to insufficient duration of ADT, since their true grade and stage corresponded to high-risk PCa definition, instead of IU PCa. Data about magnetic resonance imaging were not available but may potentially help with better stage discrimination.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsAndrogen AntagonistsHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenAndrogen AntagonistsProstate-Specific AntigenMRIpathologyprostate biopsyprostatectomyPSArisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID35365851
PMCPMC9325037
OpenAlexW4226280117

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.