Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36566100›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology focus2023

Outcomes of Grade Group 2 and 3 Prostate Cancer on Initial Versus Confirmatory Biopsy: Implications for Active Surveillance.

Marlon Perera, Ghalib Jibara, Amy L Tin, Samuel Haywood, Daniel D Sjoberg, Nicole E Benfante, Sigrid V Carlsson, James A Eastham, Vincent Laudone, Karim A Touijer and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology focus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Marlon PereraUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Ghalib JibaraUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Amy L TinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Samuel HaywoodUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Daniel D SjobergDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Nicole E BenfanteDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Sigrid V CarlssonUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
James A EasthamUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Vincent LaudoneUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Karim A TouijerUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Samson FineDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Peter T ScardinoUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Behfar EhdaieUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ehdaieb@mskcc.org.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
SPORE In Prostate CancerP50CA092629 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JAMES A EASTHAM · 2001 to 2026
$63.0M
UROLOGY ONCOLOGY RESEARCH TRAINING GRANTT32CA082088 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Brett Stewart Carver · 1999 to 2026
$7.1M
Improving shared decision making in cancer screeningK22CA234400 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI CARLSSON, SIGRID · 2019 to 2021
$621k
NCI NIH HHS K22 CA234400NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092629NCI NIH HHS T32 CA082088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundActive surveillance (AS) is recommended as the preferred treatment for men with low-risk disease. In order to optimize risk stratification and exclude undiagnosed higher-grade disease, most AS protocols recommend a confirmatory biopsy.

objectiveWe aimed to compare outcomes among men with grade group (GG) 2/3 prostate cancer on initial biopsy with those among men whose disease was initially GG1 but was upgraded to GG2/3 on confirmatory biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsWe reviewed patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in two cohorts: "immediate RP group," with GG2/3 cancer on diagnostic biopsy, and "AS group," with GG1 cancer on initial biopsy that was upgraded to GG2/3 on confirmatory biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Probabilities of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and salvage therapy were determined using multivariable Cox regression models with risk adjustment. Risks of adverse pathology at RP were also compared using logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The immediate RP group comprised 4009 patients and the AS group comprised 321 patients. The AS group had lower adjusted rates of adverse pathology (27% vs 35%, p = 0.003). BCR rates were lower in the AS group, although this did not reach conventional significance (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-1.06, p = 0.10) compared with the immediate RP group. Risk-adjusted 1- and 5-yr BCR rates were 4.6% (95% CI 3.0-6.5%) and 10.4% (95% CI 6.9-14%), respectively, for the AS group compared with 6.3% (95% CI 5.6-7.0%) and 20% (95% CI 19-22%), respectively, in the immediate RP group. A nonsignificant association was observed for salvage treatment-free survival favoring the AS group (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42, 1.06, p = 0.087).

conclusionsWe found that men with GG1 cancer who were upgraded on confirmatory biopsy tend to have less aggressive disease than men with the same grade found at initial biopsy. These results must be confirmed in larger series before recommendations can be made regarding a more conservative approach in men with upgraded pathology on surveillance biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied men with low-risk prostate cancer who were initially eligible for active surveillance but presented with more aggressive cancer on confirmatory biopsy. We found that outcomes for these men were better than the outcomes for those diagnosed initially with more serious cancer.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsWatchful WaitingBiopsyHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingProstateActive surveillanceGleason patternOncological outcomesPrognosisProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID36566100
PMCPMC10285029
OpenAlexW4312140398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.