ArticleBJUI compass2025
First validation of the Prostatype® P-score in an Asian cohort: Improving risk stratification for 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the Prostatype® P-score for predicting prostate cancer specific mortality in a multiethnic U.S. veterans cohort.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- The Role of Genomic Scores in the Management of Prostate Cancer Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- First validation of the Prostatype® P-score in an Asian cohort: Improving risk stratification for 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic performance of the Prostatype® score (P-score) in the Asian prostate cancer (PCa) cohort and to assess its ability to refine risk stratification compared to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. This study aimed to determine whether the P-score, previously validated in European populations, maintains its predictive accuracy in a genetically and clinically distinct high-risk Asian cohort, where late-stage diagnosis is more common. Patients and methods: This retrospective study included 148 PCa patients diagnosed at Taiwan Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between 2012 and 2017. Of these, 56 had primary metastases at diagnosis. The P-score was calculated based on gene expression in core needle biopsies and clinical data collected from patients' medical records. The primary endpoint was PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). The secondary endpoints were adverse pathology (AP) and biochemical failure. Results: The P-score significantly outperformed NCCN in predicting PCSM, achieving a higher C-index (0.90 vs. 0.73, P < 0.005), which reflects superior prognostic accuracy. Notably, 19.6% of patients were reclassified into different risk categories compared to NCCN, improving risk stratification and potentially altering treatment decisions for nearly one in five patients. The P-score was also an independent predictor of adverse pathology (P = 0.003, AUC: 0.81) and biochemical failure (P = 0.03, AUC: 0.89). Conclusions: This study validated the P-score for the first time in a non-European population, confirming its predictive power in an Asian high-risk setting. The reclassification of 19.6% of patients suggests that the P-score refines risk stratification beyond NCCN, offering a more precise distinction between favourable and unfavourable outcomes, enabling more informed treatment decisions. These findings highlight the global applicability of the P-score and its potential to improve risk assessment and personalized treatment for PCa patients worldwide.
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.