Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40878975›Full record

ArticleHistopathology2025

Determinants of oncologic outcomes in high-grade organ-confined prostate cancer after prostatectomy.

Reem Youssef, Omer Am Saeed, Ezra Baraban, Mohammad Salimian, Kenneth A Iczkowski, Lorene J Chung, Nicholas Baniak, Eva M Compérat, Ying Wang, Geert Jlh van Leenders and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Histopathology, 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

24 authors.

Reem YoussefDepartment of Pathology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3450-8290
Omer Am SaeedDepartment of Pathology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Ezra BarabanDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mohammad SalimianDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Kenneth A IczkowskiDepartment of Pathology, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Lorene J ChungDepartment of Pathology, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Nicholas BaniakDepartment of Pathology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Eva M CompératDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8488-543X
Ying WangDepartment of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Geert Jlh van LeendersDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2176-9102
Ankur R SangoiDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7233-2361
Douglas Jian-Xian WuDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Adeboye O OsunkoyaDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5712-8134
Shivani KandukuriDepartment of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Alicia CuberDepartment of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Kvetoslava MichalovaDepartment of Pathology, Charles University, Faculty of Medicine in Plzeň, Bioptical Laboratory, Ltd., Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Andrea Strakova-PeterikovaDepartment of Pathology, Charles University, Faculty of Medicine in Plzeň, Bioptical Laboratory, Ltd., Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Guido MartignoniDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7761-7274
Anna CaliòDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Lisa MarcoliniDepartment of Pathology, Pederzoli Hospital, Verona, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0044-8991
Hiroshi MiyamotoDepartment of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7610-7769
Angela PecoraroDepartment of Urology, Pederzoli Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Toyonori TsuzukiDepartment of Pathology, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Nagakute, Aichi, Japan.
Andres Martin AcostaDepartment of Pathology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8817-6331

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsIn radical prostatectomy (RP), Grade Group (GG) 4/5 prostate cancer [high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) hereafter] is often associated with extension beyond the prostate and positive surgical margins. Hence, there is limited information on post-RP outcomes of patients with completely resected HGPC confined to the prostate (pT2). MATERIALS AND

methodsClinical outcomes were assessed in a cohort of patients with pT2 HGPC and negative surgical margins using Kaplan-Meier statistics and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS AND

conclusionFour hundred and seven RPs were initially assessed: 236 (58%) with GG 4 and 171 (42%) with GG 5 prostate cancer (PCa). Survival analysis was performed on subsets of patients with available follow-up (BCR: n = 343, metastases: n = 347) to identify clinicopathologic variables associated with the risk of biochemical recurrence and metastasis. The size of the dominant nodule (cut-off 15 mm) (HR 1.654, 95% CI 1.026-2.667; P = 0.04) and the preoperative PSA level (HR 1.052, 95% CI 1.009-1.097; P = 0.02) were associated with a higher likelihood of BCR on univariate regression analysis, with only preoperative PSA remaining significant when both variables were assessed concurrently (HR 1.051, 95% CI 1.007-1.098; P = 0.02). On univariate Cox regression analysis, the size of the dominant nodule (cut-off: 15 mm; HR 6.315, 95% CI 2.021-19.725; P < 0.01), the presence of large cribriform components (HR 4.375, 95% CI 0.999-19.159; P = 0.05), and LVI (HR 3.808, 95% CI 1.086-13.354; P = 0.04) were associated with the risk of metastasis, but only size remained an independent predictor on multivariate analysis (HR 5.66, 95% CI 1.761-18.191; P < 0.01In p for cut-off of 15 mm).

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstatectomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomecribriformGrade Group 4Grade Group 5high‐grade prostate cancerhigh‐risk prostate cancerorgan‐confinedprostate cancerpT2

Identifiers

PMID40878975
PMCPMC12522032

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.