ArticleBJUI compass2025
Genomic prostate score and treatment selection in favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. 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.
- Multicenter Validation of a Risk Classification Cluster for Unfavorable Pathology in Prostatectomy Specimens of Patients with an Active Surveillance Expanded Inclusion Criteria.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Genomic prostate score and treatment selection in favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the factors associated with the use of active surveillance (AS) in NCCN favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients who received the 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) assay. Material and Methods: Contemporary data were collected from academic and large community group practices across the United States. Eligible patients had localized PCa classified as FIR per NCCN guidelines and received a GPS report between May 2017 and April 2019. Higher GPS results (scale: 0-100) were associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes. The proportion of patients selecting AS was calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Uni-and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association between AS selection and relevant covariates. Results: There were 324 eligible patients (Gleason Score 3 + 4, 79%; PSA 10-20 ng/ml, 19%; clinical stage T2b-T2c, 2%; median percent positive cores, 16.7%; median GPS result, 26). The distribution of GPS results was 0-19 (23%), 20-40 (60%), and 41-100 (16%). Overall, 31% (95% CI 26%, 36%) selected AS: 58% (46%, 69%) with GPS 0-19, 27% (21%, 33%) with GPS 20-40, and 6% (1%, 16%) with GPS 41-100. In univariable models, the Gleason score, percent positive cores, PSA, and GPS results were significantly associated with AS selection. In a multivariable model, the percent positive cores and the GPS result remained significantly associated with AS selection. AS persistence was 91% (82%, 95%) at 12 months. Conclusions: The GPS result and percent positive cores appear associated with AS use after controlling for relevant clinical variables in NCCN FIR prostate cancer patients.
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.