ReviewCancers2025
Prognostic Significance of PTEN Loss in Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Gleason Grade and Clinical Outcomes.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subclonal Complete Loss of CDKN1B as a Common Genomic Alteration in Prostate Cancer: Associations With Race and Prostate Cancer Outcomes.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2026Article
- PTEN Protein Loss in Diagnostic Prostate Biopsies Is Associated with Gleason Score Upgrading in Radical Prostatectomy.Cancers · 2026Article
- Genomic Determinants of Lethality and Therapeutic Vulnerability in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- From prostate specific antigen to genomic signatures: Advances in biomarkers for prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis.Translational oncology · 2026Review
- Glyoxalase 2 Drives D-Lactate Oncometabolite Signaling to Promote Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness via FAK/Src Activation.Antioxidants (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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsProstate cancer (PCa) presents ongoing challenges in differentiating aggressive from indolent disease using traditional biomarkers such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The Phosphatase and Tensin Homolog (PTEN), a key tumour suppressor involved in cellular growth regulation, is emerging as a promising biomarker for risk stratification. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the prognostic significance of PTEN loss in PCa, particularly its relationship with Gleason grade groups (GG), as defined by the ISUP system, and clinical outcomes.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies encompassing 11,375 patients was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidance. Studies included evaluated PTEN loss, stratified by hemizygous and homozygous deletions, and its association with GG and clinical endpoints such as biochemical recurrence and lethal progression. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsPTEN loss was significantly associated with tumour aggressiveness. Compared to GG1 tumours, the odds of PTEN loss were markedly increased in Gleason GG 2 and 3(OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.95-3.61) and GG ≥ 4 (OR: 6.35, 95% CI: 5.37-7.33). Homozygous PTEN deletions were more strongly associated with high-grade tumours than hemizygous deletions. Clinically, PTEN loss was predictive of adverse outcomes, including increased risk of biochemical recurrence (HR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.31-2.25) and lethal progression (HR: 2.57, 95% CI: 1.12-3.95).
conclusionPTEN loss correlates with higher GG and poorer clinical outcomes in PCa. Incorporating PTEN assessment into clinical decision making could improve risk stratification, guiding early intervention strategies and identifying patients suitable for active surveillance.
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.