ArticleThe world journal of men's health2025
Pathological Assessment of Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer.
Article in The world journal of men's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA variety of treatment options are now available for men with localized prostate cancer (PC); however, there is still debate in determining how and when to intervene for Grade Group (GG) 2 disease. Our study aims to formulate strategies to identify men at risk of upgrading and having adverse pathological outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study includes 243 patients with GG2 PC that were treated with radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2021. Patients on active surveillance, previous history of prostate biopsy, hormonal and/or radiation therapy prior to surgery were excluded from this study. A retrospective analysis was conducted using clinicopathological data obtained from medical records.
resultsProstate-specific antigen (PSA) and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score were statistically significant variables for risk of upgrading. In men who had presence of composite poor outcomes, PSA, PI-RADS score, presence of extraprostatic extension and seminal vesical invasion on MRI, number of positive cores, percentage of high grade (pattern 4/5) on prostate biopsy and Gleason pattern 4 volume on biopsy were all statistically significant variables. Strategy 8 (PI-RADS 5 lesion or percentage high grade [Gleason pattern 4] on prostate biopsy grade >10% or >3 cores positive on prostate biopsy) had significant association to identifying the highest number of men with upgrading and composite poor outcomes.
conclusionsOur study supports the use of strategy 8 in treatment decision making of men with GG2 PC. Further validation of the use of this strategy is warranted.
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.