Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35838831›Full record

ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2022

Adverse upgrading and/or upstaging in contemporary low-risk prostate cancer patients.

Rocco S Flammia, Benedikt Hoeh, Lukas Hohenhorst, Gabriele Sorce, Francesco Chierigo, Andrea Panunzio, Zhe Tian, Fred Saad, Costantino Leonardo, Alberto Briganti and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International urology and nephrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

19 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Rocco S FlammiaDepartment of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy. roccosimone92@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3129-0544
Benedikt HoehCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Lukas HohenhorstCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Gabriele SorceCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Francesco ChierigoCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Andrea PanunzioCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Zhe TianCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Fred SaadCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Costantino LeonardoDepartment of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Alberto BrigantiDivision of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Carlo TerroneDepartment of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Umberto AnceschiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy.
Markus GraefenMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Felix K H ChunDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Francesco MontorsiDivision of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Michele GallucciDepartment of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Université de Montréal · CAIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · ITGoethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity of Verona · ITAl-Ahliyya Amman University · JOSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUpgrading and/or upstaging in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients may represent an indication for active treatment instead of active surveillance (AS). We addressed contemporary upgrading and/or upstaging rates in a large population based-cohort of low-risk PCa patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsWhitin the SEER database (2010-2015), NCCN low-risk PCa patients were identified across management modalities: radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT) and non-local treatment (NLT). In RP patients, upgrading and/or upstaging rates were assessed in logistic regression models.

resultsOverall, of 27,901 low-risk PCa patients, 38% underwent RP vs 28% RT vs 34% NLT. RP patients were the youngest and harbored the highest percentage of positive cores and a higher rate of cT2a than NLT. At RP, 46.2% were upgraded to GGG ≥ 2, 6.0% to GGG ≥ 3 and 10.5% harbored nonorgan-confined stage (NOC, pT3-4 or pN1). Of NOC patients, 1.6% harbored GGG ≥ 3, 6.3% harbored GGG2 and 2.6% harbored GGG1. Of pT2 patients, 4.4% harbored GGG ≥ 3, 33.9% harbored GGG2 and 51.3% harbored GGG1. Age, PSA, percentage of positive cores and number of positive cores independently predicted the presence of NOC and/or GGG ≥ 3, but with low accuracy (63.9%).

conclusionsIn low-risk PCa, critical changes between tumor grade and stage at biopsy vs RP may be expected in very few patients: NOC with GGG ≥ 3 in 1.6% and NOC with GGG2 in 6.3%. Other patients with upgrading and/or upstaging combinations will invariably harbor either pT2 or GGG1 that far less critically affect PCa prognosis.

Indexed as

Prostate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenLow riskProstate cancerRadical prostatectomyUpgradingUpstaging

Identifiers

PMID35838831
PMCPMC9463257
OpenAlexW4285492587

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.