ArticleDiagnostic pathology2026
Refining prostate cancer diagnosis: correlative analysis of Gleason scores and immunohistochemical markers.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistinguishing prostate cancer (PCa) from benign prostatic tissue can be challenging in equivocal cases. Gleason grading remains the gold standard, with immunohistochemical (IHC) markers such as androgen receptor (AR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and α-methylacyl-CoA racemase (P504S/AMACR) serving as established adjuncts. This study aimed to confirm their diagnostic utility in a retrospective Chinese cohort of PCa and benign controls (primarily benign prostatic hyperplasia [BPH]).
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 147 patients (88 PCa, 59 BPH) evaluated between 2020 and 2024 at two Chinese institutions. Gleason scores were extracted from pathology reports. IHC for AR, PSA, P504S (AMACR), and hematopoietic cell kinase (HCK) was performed routinely when clinically indicated. AR staining (when available) was assessed exclusively in tumor cell nuclei, with positivity defined qualitatively by any discernible nuclear staining (typically >1% of cells, including weak intensity). Due to the retrospective design and routine practice, no uniform cutoff or re-scoring was applied. AR and PSA results were available in most cases, whereas P504S was assessed in a subset (40/88 PCa; 19/59 benign), typically diagnostically ambiguous samples. Marker positivity was compared between PCa and benign tissue and correlated with Gleason score components and patient age.
resultsAR and PSA positivity were significantly higher in PCa than benign tissue (AR: 25.0% vs. 8.5%, p=0.011; PSA: 40.9% vs. 20.3%, p=0.009), consistent with prior reports. The lower AR rate in PCa (25.0%) likely reflects routine clinical reporting variability and thresholds. In assessed subsets, P504S was positive in 100% (40/40) of PCa cases versus 26.3% (5/19) of benign cases (p<0.0001), aligning with its established sensitivity. AR positivity peaked in intermediate Gleason grades but declined in high-grade tumors, while PSA showed a modest increasing trend with grade. HCK was uniformly negative in all assessed cases, supporting its limited diagnostic relevance. No significant age association was observed with Gleason categories.
conclusionThis retrospective analysis corroborates the complementary roles of P504S (in assessed subsets), AR, and PSA as valuable IHC adjuncts to Gleason grading for evaluating prostate tissue, including differentiation from benign conditions such as BPH. HCK negativity further supports its deprioritization in diagnostic panels.
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.