ArticleBJUI compass2022
Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Article in BJUI compass, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Significance of the cribriform morphology area ratio for biochemical recurrence in Gleason score 4 + 4 prostate cancer patients following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Shining a little light on peer review debates.BJUI compass · 2022Article
- Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.BJUI compass · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate whether the International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 4 (GG 4) subgroups have different oncological outcomes in Japanese prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study in PCa patients undergoing RARP at 10 institutions in Japan. Pre- and post-operative variables were collected from enrolled patients. We evaluated biochemical recurrence and clinical and pathological variables in the different GG 4 subgroups. Results: A total of 3195 patients were enrolled in the study. Among them, 298 patients with GG 4 tumours (pathological Gleason scores [GSs] of 3 + 5 [ Conclusions: For patients with localized PCa undergoing RARP, pathological GS 4 + 4 and GS 5 + 3 were significantly associated with worse BCRFS than pathological GS 3 + 5. Pathological GS 3 + 5 may be overrated in GG 4. This observation emphasizes that primary and secondary GS should be considered to accurately stratify the risk of BCR after RARP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.