ArticleThe Prostate2026
Comparisons of Novel Risk Stratification Models to the Current cT1a/b Staging in Incidental Prostate Cancer.
Article in The Prostate, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIncidental prostate cancer (PCa) patients are currently stratified to either cT1a vs. cT1b stage, depending on tumor volume (< 5% vs. > 5%) in the resected tissue. We tested for other models that could improve cancer-specific survival (CSS) predictions.
methodsIncidental (cT1a/cT1b) PCa patients were retrospectively identified within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015). Kaplan-Meier plots illustrated CSS at 5 years of follow-up. Combination of variables resulted in three distinct stratification models based on cT1a vs. cT1b and Gleason score sum (GS). Multivariable Cox regression models that predicted CSS were used for area under the curve (AUC) quantification after 20-fold cross validation.
resultsWe identified a total of 5155 incidental PCa patients. CSS at 5 years was 98% for cT1a vs. 90% for cT1b (p < 0.0001). CSS at 5 years for combination of cT1a and GS 6 patients was 99% vs. 92% for patients with either cT1b or GS ≥ 7 (p < 0.0001). Finally, for patients with GS < 8, CSS at 5 years was 98% vs. 72% for patients with GS ≥ 8 (p < 0.0001). The multivariable adjusted AUC was 0.83 vs. 0.82 vs. 0.88, for each model, respectively.
conclusionOf all tested stratification models, the consideration of GS stratified between < 8 and ≥ 8 resulted in the best survival discrimination, as well as highest accuracy after cross-validation. In consequence, the use of this model (GS < 8 vs. ≥ 8) appears better suited than the standard cT1a vs. cT1b substaging, when CSS represents the endpoint of interest.
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.