Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36342512›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2022

Heterogeneity of contemporary grade group 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Alberto Martini, Alae Touzani, Jean-Baptiste Beauval, Alain Ruffion, Jonathan Olivier, Anis Gasmi, Charles Dariane, Matthieu Thoulouzan, Eric Barret, Laurent Brureau and 14 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

24 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.

Alberto Martini *Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, 52, Chemin de Ribaute, 31130, Quint Fonsegrives, France.
Alae Touzani *Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, 52, Chemin de Ribaute, 31130, Quint Fonsegrives, France. medalaet@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3087-3518
Jean-Baptiste BeauvalDepartment of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, 52, Chemin de Ribaute, 31130, Quint Fonsegrives, France.
Alain RuffionService d'urologie Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Jonathan OlivierUniv. Lille, CNRS, Inserm, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, UMR9020-U1277-CANTHER-Cancer Heterogeneity Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, 59000, Lille, France.
Anis GasmiDepartment of Urology, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France.
Charles DarianeDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, APHP, Paris-Paris University-U1151 Inserm-INEM, Necker, Paris, France.
Matthieu ThoulouzanDepartment of Urology, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Eric BarretDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Laurent BrureauCHU de Pointe-À-Pitre, University of Antilles, University of Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de Recherche en Santé, Environnement Et Travail)-UMR_S 1085, 97110, Pointe-À-Pitre, France.
Gilles CréhangeDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Gaëlle FiardDepartment of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC-IMAG, Grenoble, France.
Mathieu GauthéUnité de Recherche Clinique en Économie de la Santé, CRESS METHODS INSERM UMR 1153, Paris, France.
Raphaële Renard-PennaSorbonne University, AP-HP, Radiology, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, F-75013, Paris, France.
Guilhem RoubaudDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Paul SargosDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Mathieu RoumiguiéDepartment of Urology, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Marc-Olivier TimsitDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, APHP, Paris-Paris University-U1151 Inserm-INEM, Necker, Paris, France.
Romain MathieuDepartment of Urology, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France.
Arnauld VillersDepartment of Urology, Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, 59000, Lille, France.
Morgan RouprêtSorbonne University, GRC 5 Predictive Onco-Uro, AP-HP, Urology, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, 75013, Paris, France.
Gaëlle FromontDepartment of Pathology, CHRU Tours, Tours, France.
Guillaume PloussardDepartment of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, 52, Chemin de Ribaute, 31130, Quint Fonsegrives, France.
CC-AFU, Cancerology Committee of the Association Française d’Urologie
Inserm · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse · FRInstitut Bergonié · FRInstitut universitaire du cancer de Toulouse Oncopole · FRLyon Genou Centre Albert Trillat · FRSorbonne Université · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInstitut Curie · FRInstitute Mutualiste Montsouris · FRInstitut polytechnique de Grenoble · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversité de Lille · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim was to evaluate the prognostic role of sub-categories of ISUP 4 prostate cancer (PCa) on final pathology, and assess the tumor architecture prognostic role for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy.

methodsFrom a prospectively-maintained database, we included 370 individuals with ISUP 4 on final pathology. The main outcomes were to evaluate the relationship between different ISUP patterns within the group 4 with pathological and oncological outcomes. Binary logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier estimator were used to evaluate the role of the different categories (3 + 5, 4 + 4, 5 + 3) and tumor architecture (intraductal and/or cribriform) on pathological and oncological outcomes.

resultsAmong the 370 individuals with ISUP considered for the study, 9, 85 and 6% had grade 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 PCa, respectively. Overall, 74% had extracapsular extension, while lymph node invasion (LNI) was documented in 9%. A total of 144 patients experienced BCR during follow-up. After adjusting for PSA, pT, grade group, LNI and positive surgical margins (PSM), grade 3 + 5 was a protective factor (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.13,0.68, p = 0.004) in predicting BCR relative to grade 4 + 4. Intraductal or cribriform architecture was correlated with BCR (HR: 5.99, 95% CI: 2.68, 13.4, p < 0.001) after adjusting for PSA, pT, grade group, LNI and PSM.

conclusionsPatients with tumor grade 3 + 5 had better pathological and prognostic outcomes compared to 4 + 4 or 5 + 3. When accounting for tumor architecture, the sub-stratification into subgroups lost its prognostic role and tumor architecture was the sole predictor of poorer prognosis in terms of biochemical recurrence.

Indexed as

Prostate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleMargins of ExcisionNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstateProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenCribriformGrade group 4IntraductalProstate cancerSubgradingSurvival

Identifiers

PMID36342512
OpenAlexW4308367306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.