Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41980712›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026

Validating clinical assumptions for characterizing prostate cancer aggressiveness utilizing historical cancer registry data.

Kaitlyn M Tsuruda, Hilde Langseth, Lauren M Hurwitz, Stella Koutros, Trude E Robsahm, Rune Kvåle

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Kaitlyn M TsurudaDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0304 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8749-6237
Hilde LangsethDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0304 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9446-4855
Lauren M HurwitzDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8932-5028
Stella KoutrosDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5294-5485
Trude E RobsahmDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0304 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1652-7734
Rune KvåleDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0304 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-4106-230X

Funding

Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prognosis of prostate cancer is highly dependent on disease characteristics at diagnosis, and dilution effects can compromise etiological studies that are not stratified by disease aggressiveness. However, such classifications are often hindered by missing staging data. This study aimed to develop and validate clinical assumptions to consolidate information about clinical TNM stage and Gleason score (GS) for improved classification of aggressive and non-aggressive disease. A total of 17 551 males diagnosed with prostate cancer (1974-2022) in the Norwegian Janus Serum Bank cohort were included. The developed clinical assumptions were validated using positive predictive values (PPVs) among males with non-missing data and long-term cancer-specific mortality. Cases were classified as aggressive (cT4, N1, M1, or GS ≥ 8) or non-aggressive (complete information without aggressive features) with and without applying the clinical assumptions. Of the 14 developed clinical assumptions, 8 had a PPV > 95%. Applying these assumptions nearly halved the proportion of cases with unclassifiable aggressivity (from 59% to 32%). Fifteen-year cumulative mortality [95%CI] was higher for previously unclassifiable cases newly classified as aggressive (53.4% [47.6-59.7]) than for cases originally classified as aggressive (42.6% [40.5-44.8]). Clinical assumptions to consolidate TNM and GS information can substantially improve the classification of aggressive and non-aggressive prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingNorwayPrognosisRegistriesaggressive prostate cancerpopulation-based cohortprostate cancerregistry datavalidation study

Identifiers

PMID41980712
PMCPMC13437071

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.