ArticleBJU international2025
Quantification of prostate cancer Gleason pattern 4 to predict oncological outcome.
Article in BJU international, 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.
- Comparing Gleason Pattern 4 Measurement Approaches on Prostate Biopsy Using Machine Learning: A Proof-of-Principle Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if quantifying Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) is superior to Grade Group (GG) in predicting any and distant metastatic recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer, and compare various GP4 quantification methods for predicting metastatic recurrence using preoperative targeted biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent MRI-guided biopsies and RP from 2009 to 2018. Patients with GG 2-4 without GP5 disease on biopsy and/or RP specimen were included. The predictors compared were biopsy GG, percentage of GP4 in biopsy cores, millimetres of GP4 in biopsy cores, and volume of GP4 based on MRI lesion volume. These methods were also compared to the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA), International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate (STAR-CAP), European Association of Urology (EAU), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk classifications. The C-index for each model was calculated to evaluate discrimination performance.
resultsA total of 446 patients were analysed, with a median follow-up of 6.9 years for patients without an event; 46 patients developed any metastasis. For any metastatic recurrence based on biopsy findings, the CAPRA score (C-Index = 0.72) showed the highest discrimination among risk scores, surpassing biopsy GG (C-Index = 0.70), but was outperformed by percentage GP4 (C-Index = 0.74), millimetres GP4 (C-Index = 0.77), and volume of GP4 (C-Index = 0.80).
conclusionFor patients with GG 2-4 prostate cancer containing GP4, preoperative GP4 volume estimation using MRI and targeted biopsy outperforms Gleason scoring classification and standard risk scores in predicting any and distant metastatic recurrence. Further research is warranted on the best methods to quantify GP4 before incorporation in treatment decision-making.
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.