ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
Tumor upgrading among very favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: how can it impact the clinical course?
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective head-to-head comparison of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Establishing a model predicting Gleason grade group upgrading in prostate cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe sought to investigate predictors of unfavorable tumor upgrading in very favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, in addition to evaluate how it may affect the risk of disease progression.
methodsA very favorable subset of IR PCa patients presenting with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 10 ng/mL, percentage of biopsy positive cores (BPC) < 50%, and either International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 1 and clinical stage T2b or ISUP grade group 2 and clinical stage T1c-2b was identified. Unfavorable pathology at radical prostatectomy was defined as the presence of ISUP grade group > 2 (unfavorable tumor upgrading), extracapsular extension (ECE), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI). Disease progression was defined as the event of biochemical recurrence and/or local recurrence and/or distant metastases. Associations were evaluated by Cox regression and logistic regression analyses.
resultsOverall, 210 patients were identified between January 2013 and October 2020. Unfavorable tumor upgrading was detected in 71 (33.8%) cases, and adverse tumor stage, including ECE or SVI in 18 (8.6%) and 11 (5.2%) patients, respectively. Median (interquartile range) follow-up was 38.5 (16-61) months. PCa progression occurred in 24 (11.4%) patients. Very favorable IR PCa patients with unfavorable tumor upgrading at final pathology showed a persistent risk of disease progression, which hold significance after adjustment for all factors (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 5.95, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.97-17.92, p = 0.002) of which PSA was an independent predictor (HR: 1.52, 95% CI 1.12-2.08, p = 0.008). Moreover, these subjects were more likely to belong to the biopsy ISUP grade group 2.
conclusionsVery favorable IR PCa patients hiding unfavorable tumor upgrading were more likely to experience disease progression. Unfavorable tumor upgrading involved about one-third of cases and was less likely to occur in patients presenting with biopsy ISUP grade group 1. Tumor misclassification is an issue to discuss, when counseling this subset of patients for active surveillance because of the risk of delayed active treatment.
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.