Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37126232›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2023

Multimodal Biomarkers That Predict the Presence of Gleason Pattern 4: Potential Impact for Active Surveillance.

D M Berman, A Y Lee, R Lesurf, P G Patel, W Ebrahimizadeh, J Bayani, L A Lee, N Boufaied, S Selvarajah, T Jamaspishvili and 25 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

35 authors.

D M BermanQueen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
A Y LeeOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
R LesurfOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
P G PatelQueen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
W EbrahimizadehDepartment of Surgery, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
J BayaniOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
L A LeeOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
N BoufaiedDepartment of Surgery, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
S SelvarajahDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
T JamaspishviliQueen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
K-P GuérardDepartment of Surgery, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
D DionOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
A KawashimaQueen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
G M ClarkeOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
N HowQueen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
C L JacksonQueen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
E ScarlataDepartment of Surgery, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
K SiddiquiSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
J B A OkelloQueen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
A G AprikianDepartment of Surgery, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
M MoussaSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
A FinelliPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J ChinSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
F BrimoDepartment of Surgery, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
G BaumanSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
A LoblawDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
V VenkateswaranDepartments of Surgery and Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
R ButtyanVancouver Prostate Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
S ChevalierDepartment of Surgery, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
A ThomsonDepartment of Surgery, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
P C ParkDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
D R SiemensQueen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
J LapointeDepartment of Surgery, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
P C BoutrosOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J M S BartlettOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0347-3888

Funding

Women's CancersP30CA016042 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Samuel Wheeler French · 1985 to 2026
$134.5M
Development of Protein Biomarkers in Post-DRE Urine for use in Liquid Biopsy of Prostate CancerU01CA214194 · NCI · EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI BOUTROS, PAUL CHRISTOPHER, KISLINGER, THOMAS · 2016 to 2021
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016042NCI NIH HHS U01 CA214194
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLatent grade group ≥2 prostate cancer can impact the performance of active surveillance protocols. To date, molecular biomarkers for active surveillance have relied solely on RNA or protein. We trained and independently validated multimodal (mRNA abundance, DNA methylation, and/or DNA copy number) biomarkers that more accurately separate grade group 1 from grade group ≥2 cancers. MATERIALS AND

methodsLow- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients were assigned to training (n=333) and validation (n=202) cohorts. We profiled the abundance of 342 mRNAs, 100 DNA copy number alteration loci, and 14 hypermethylation sites at 2 locations per tumor. Using the training cohort with cross-validation, we evaluated methods for training classifiers of pathological grade group ≥2 in centrally reviewed radical prostatectomies. We trained 2 distinct classifiers, PRONTO-e and PRONTO-m, and validated them in an independent radical prostatectomy cohort.

resultsPRONTO-e comprises 353 mRNA and copy number alteration features. PRONTO-m includes 94 clinical, mRNAs, copy number alterations, and methylation features at 14 and 12 loci, respectively. In independent validation, PRONTO-e and PRONTO-m predicted grade group ≥2 with respective true-positive rates of 0.81 and 0.76, and false-positive rates of 0.43 and 0.26. Both classifiers were resistant to sampling error and identified more upgrading cases than a well-validated presurgical risk calculator, CAPRA (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment;

conclusionsTwo grade group classifiers with superior accuracy were developed by incorporating RNA and DNA features and validated in an independent cohort. Upon further validation in biopsy samples, classifiers with these performance characteristics could refine selection of men for active surveillance, extending their treatment-free survival and intervals between surveillance.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsWatchful WaitingBiomarkersHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenRNARNA, MessengerBiomarkersProstate-Specific AntigenRNARNA, Messengerbiomarkersprecision medicineprostatic neoplasmsselection biaswatchful waiting

Identifiers

PMID37126232
PMCPMC12721650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.