Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38348129›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology

The impact of prognostic group classification on prostate cancer progression in intermediate-risk patients according to the European Association of Urology system: results in 479 patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at a single tertiary referral center.

Antonio Benito Porcaro, Alberto Bianchi, Andrea Panunzio, Sebastian Gallina, Alessandro Tafuri, Emanuele Serafin, Rossella Orlando, Giovanni Mazzucato, Stefano Vidiri, Damiano D'Aietti and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

22 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Antonio Benito PorcaroDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, Verona 37126, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9756-4632
Alberto BianchiDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Andrea PanunzioDepartment of Urology, Vito Fazzi Hospital, Lecce, Italy.
Sebastian GallinaDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Alessandro TafuriDepartment of Urology, Vito Fazzi Hospital, Lecce, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1404-2925
Emanuele SerafinDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5646-9719
Rossella OrlandoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Giovanni MazzucatoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Stefano VidiriDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Damiano D'AiettiDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Francesca MontanaroDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Giulia Marafioti PatuzzoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Francesco ArtoniDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Alberto BaielliDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Francesco DitonnoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Riccardo RizzettoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Alessandro VecciaDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Alessandra GozzoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Vincenzo De MarcoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Matteo BrunelliDepartment of Pathology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Maria Angela CerrutoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
University of Verona · ITOspedale Vito Fazzi · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Treatment outcomes in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) may be impaired by adverse pathology misclassification including tumor upgrading and upstaging. Clinical predictors of disease progression need to be improved in this category of patients. Objectives: To identify PCa prognostic factors to define prognostic groups in intermediate-risk patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Design: Data from 1143 patients undergoing RARP from January 2013 to October 2020 were collected: 901 subjects had available follow-up, of whom 479 were at intermediate risk. Methods: PCa progression was defined as biochemical recurrence and/or local recurrence and/or distant metastases. Study endpoints were evaluated by statistical methods including Cox's proportional hazards, Kaplan-Meyer survival curves, and binomial and multinomial logistic regression models. Results: After a median (interquartile range) of 35 months (15-57 months), 84 patients (17.5%) had disease progression, which was independently predicted by the percentage of biopsy-positive cores ⩾ 50% and the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 3 for clinical factors and by ISUP > 2, positive surgical margins and pelvic lymph node invasion for pathological features. Patients were classified into clinical and pathological groups as favorable, unfavorable (one prognostic factor), and adverse (more than one prognostic factor). The risk of PCa progression increased with worsening prognosis through groups. A significant positive association was found between the two groups; consequently, as clinical prognosis worsened, the risk of detecting unfavorable and adverse pathological prognostic clusters increased in both unadjusted and adjusted models. Conclusion: The study identified factors predicting disease progression that allowed the computation of highly correlated prognostic groups. As the prognosis worsened, the risk of PCa progression increased. Intermediate-risk PCa needs more prognostic stratification for appropriate management.

Indexed as

adverse pathologyintermediate-risk prostate cancerprognostic factorsprognostic groupsprostate cancerprostate cancer progressionrobot-assisted radical prostatectomytumor upgradingtumor upstaging

Identifiers

PMID38348129
PMCPMC10860426
OpenAlexW4391758143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.