Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40478475›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026

Comparison of highest and overall percentage Gleason pattern 4 in prostate cancer biopsies.

L J Kroon, K P Leeuwenburgh, S Remmers, C F Kweldam, R C N van den Bergh, C H Bangma, G J L H van Leenders, Anser Prostate Cancer Network

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

8 authors.

L J KroonDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. l.kroon@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6801-3633
K P LeeuwenburghDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Na-15, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3024-4789
S RemmersDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Na-15, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9530-6448
C F KweldamAnser Prostate Network, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1581-9612
R C N van den BerghAnser Prostate Network, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2605-2453
C H BangmaDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Na-15, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7787-1969
G J L H van LeendersDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2176-9102
Anser Prostate Cancer Network

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend pathologists to report percentage Gleason pattern 4 (GP4%) in Gleason score (GS) 7 prostate cancer (PCa) biopsies. However, it is unspecified whether the highest or overall GP4% should be reported. This study aims to clarify which quantification method correlates best with radical prostatectomy (RP) pathology. This study included 308 men with the highest GS 3 + 4 = 7, 4 + 3 = 7, or 4 + 4 = 8 on centrally revised systematic and/or targeted biopsies who underwent RP between 2018 and 2022. The highest and overall biopsy GP4% were compared with RP GP4% using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and adverse pathology (AP) (pT-stage ≥ T3, GS ≥ 4 + 3 = 7 and/or pN1) using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for clinical tumor stage, prostate specific antigen (PSA), percentage of tumor positive biopsies, biopsy modality (systematic/targeted/both), and cribriform pattern. Both quantification methods correlated with RP GP4% (both rho = 0.59), and no significant difference was found between them (p = 0.78). On multivariable analyses, both GP4% quantification methods were significantly associated with AP (per 10% increase, highest GP4% odds ratio [OR] 1.26 [95% CI 1.14-1.39], overall GP4% OR 1.38 [95% CI 1.22-1.58], both p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) was slightly better for overall (0.78 [95% CI 0.73-0.83]) than the highest GP4% (0.76 [95% CI 0.71-0.81], p = 0.041). This study found that the highest and overall biopsy GP4% both correlated with RP GP4%. Although the discriminative performance of the highest and overall GP4% was comparable with respect to AP at RP, the overall GP4% statistically slightly outperformed the highest GP4%. Including the overall GP4% may have added value in risk stratification and clinical decision-making in a subset of PCa patients.

Indexed as

Neoplasm GradingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenAdverse pathologyCarcinoma, CribriformGleasonProstate biopsyProstate cancerRadical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID40478475
PMCPMC13053573

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.