ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2026
Diagnostic discordance in outside prostate biopsies: Implications for active surveillance patient selection.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGleason grade group (GG) concordance between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) is critical for treatment planning, particularly for active surveillance (AS). We compared GG concordance, upgrade rates, and AS misclassification between institutional and outside biopsies and evaluated the impact of pathologic re-evaluation. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this propensity score-matched cohort study, 3,744 patients (1,872 institutional and 1,872 outside biopsies) who underwent RP were analyzed. Outside biopsies were stratified by re-evaluation status (re-evaluated, n=570; not re-evaluated, n=1,302). Primary outcomes included overall GG concordance, clinically significant upgrade (≥2 GG), and AS misclassification (biopsy GG 1 to RP ≥GG 3). Agreement was assessed using weighted kappa statistics, and predictors of upgrade were identified by multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOverall GG concordance was 44.7%. Institutional biopsies showed the highest concordance (47.8%) compared to outside biopsies with (45.3%) and without re-evaluation (40.0%) (p<0.001). Among biopsy GG 1 patients, AS misclassification to ≥GG 3 occurred in 9.6% of institutional biopsies, compared to 27.0% of outside re-evaluated biopsies and 20.0% of outside non-re-evaluated biopsies (p<0.0001). Outside biopsy source (odds ratio [OR] 1.351, p=0.013) and absence of re-evaluation (OR 1.451, p=0.028) were identified as independent predictors of GG upgrade.
conclusionsOutside prostate biopsies exhibit 2.1- to 2.8-fold higher AS misclassification rates compared to institutional biopsies. Pathologic re-evaluation provides only modest improvement and does not eliminate upgrade risk, supporting systematic second-opinion review and careful confirmation before AS enrollment.
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.