ArticleThe Prostate2025
Genomic Signatures Correlating With Adverse Pathologic Features in Men Eligible for Active Surveillance.
Article in The Prostate, 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenomic biomarkers offer opportunities to improve risk stratification for patients with prostate cancer. We performed a transcriptomic profile of active surveillance (AS)-eligible patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) to understand genomic associations with adverse pathologic features (APF) at RP.
methodsPatients considered AS-eligible (NCCN low-favorable intermediate risk) but proceeded to RP from February 2012 to September 2024 were identified from our prospective institutional database. Outcomes were classified by presence or absence of APF at RP, which was defined as grade group (GG) ≥ 3, pT3b, or pN1 disease. Previously established genomic signatures of interest were compared between the two groups. Scaled multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations between multiple genomic classification systems and the outcome of APF.
resultsThere were 184 AS-eligible patients, of whom 153 (83.2%) had favorable intermediate risk disease and 31 (16.8%) had low risk disease. There were 41 patients (22.3%) who had APF at RP. The incidence of favorable intermediate risk disease did not differ between those with and without APF (80.5% vs. 83.9%, p = 0.64). Patients with APF had a higher baseline PSA (5.6 ng/mL vs. 4.9 ng/mL, p = 0.01) and Decipher score (0.55 vs. 0.41, p = 0.004) compared to those without APF. On scaled logistic regression with adjustment for log-transformed PSA, the Decipher score, PTEN loss, activated CD4, and ERG positive rate were significantly associated with APF (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11-2.32, p = 0.01). Of ten other previously published genomic classifiers, nine were significantly associated with APF.
conclusionAS-eligible patients with APF at RP demonstrate differences in gene expression when compared to those without APF. We established that multiple existing genomic classifiers not previously studied in this context demonstrate the ability to predict APF in this patient population. Inclusion of genomics in the risk stratification of AS-eligible patients has the potential to better inform clinical decisions.
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.