ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Predicting the probability of pT3 or higher pathological stage at radical prostatectomy: COVID19-specific considerations.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real world comparison of adjuvant vs. salvage radiation therapy on cancer-control outcomes after radical prostatectomy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Incidence and Predicting Factors of Histopathological Features at Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the mpMRI Era: Results of a Single Tertiary Referral Center.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We tested whether a model identifying prostate cancer (PCa) patients at risk of pT3-4/pN1 can be developed for use during COVID19 pandemic, in order to guarantee appropriate treatment to patients harboring advanced disease patients without compromising sustainability of care delivery. Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database 2010-2016, we identified 27,529 patients with localized PCa and treated with radical prostatectomy. A multivariable logistic regression model predicting presence of pT3-4/pN1 disease was fitted within a development cohort (n=13,977, 50.8%). Subsequently, external validation (n=13,552, 49.2%) and head-to-head comparison with NCCN risk group stratification was performed. Results: In model development, age, PSA, biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) and percentage of positive biopsy cores were independent predictors of pT3-4/pN1 stage. In external validation, prediction of pT3-4/pN1 with novel nomogram was 74% accurate versus 68% for NCCN risk group stratification. Nomogram achieved better calibration and showed net-benefit over NCCN risk group stratification in decision curve analyses. The use of nomogram cut-off of 49% resulted in pT3-4/pN1 rate of 65%, instead of the average 35%. Conclusion: The newly developed, externally validated nomogram predicts presence of pT3-4/pN1 better than NCCN risk group stratification and allows to focus radical prostatectomy treatment on individuals at highest risk of pT3-4/pN1.
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.