Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40314071›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in urology2025

Optimizing clinical risk stratification of localized prostate cancer.

Vincent J Gnanapragasam

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Vincent J GnanapragasamDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo review the current risk and prognostic stratification systems in localised prostate cancer. To explore some of the most promising adjuncts to clinical models and what the evidence has shown regarding their value. RECENT

findingsThere are many new biomarker-based models seeking to improve, optimise or replace clinical models. There are promising data on the value of MRI, radiomics, genomic classifiers and most recently artificial intelligence tools in refining stratification. Despite the extensive literature however, there remains uncertainty on where in pathways they can provide the most benefit and whether a biomarker is most useful for prognosis or predictive use. Comparisons studies have also often overlooked the fact that clinical models have themselves evolved and the context of the baseline used in biomarker studies that have shown superiority have to be considered. SUMMARY: For new biomarkers to be included in stratification models, well designed prospective clinical trials are needed. Until then, there needs to be caution in interpretation of their use for day-to-day decision making. It is critical that users balance any purported incremental value against the performance of the latest clinical classification and multivariate models especially as the latter are cost free and widely available.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorProstatic NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePrognosisProstateRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsBiomarkers, Tumorartificial intelligencegenomic classifiersmodern clinical classifiersMRIprognosisprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID40314071
PMCPMC12147731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.