↓ Skip to main content

Prognostic Value of the New Prostate Cancer International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Groups

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prognostic Value of the New Prostate Cancer International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Groups
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00157
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Offermann, Silke Hohensteiner, Christiane Kuempers, Julika Ribbat-Idel, Felix Schneider, Finn Becker, Marie Christine Hupe, Stefan Duensing, Axel S. Merseburger, Jutta Kirfel, Markus Reischl, Verena Lubczyk, Rainer Kuefer, Sven Perner

Abstract

Gleason grading is the best independent predictor for prostate cancer (PCa) progression. Recently, a new PCa grading system has been introduced by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) and is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Following studies observed more accurate and simplified grade stratification of the new system. Aim of this study was to compare the prognostic value of the new grade groups compared to the former Gleason Grading and to determine whether re-definition of Gleason Pattern 4 might reduce upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. A cohort of men undergoing RP from 2002 to 2015 at the Hospital of Goeppingen (Goeppingen, Germany) was used for this study. In total, 339 pre-operative prostatic biopsies and corresponding RP specimens, as well as additional 203 RP specimens were re-reviewed for Grade Groups according to the ISUP. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BFS) after surgery was used as endpoint to analyze prognostic significance. Other clinicopathological data included TNM-stage and pre-operative PSA level. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed risk stratification of patients based on both former Gleason Grading and ISUP Grade Groups, and was statistically significant using the log-rank test (p < 0.001). Both grading systems significantly correlated with TNM-stage and pre-operative PSA level (p < 0.001). Higher tumor grade in RP specimen compared to corresponding pre-operative biopsy was observed in 44 and 34.5% of cases considering former Gleason Grading and ISUP Grade Groups, respectively. Both, former Gleason Grading and ISUP Grade Groups predict survival when applied on tumors in prostatic biopsies as well as RP specimens. This is the first validation study on a large representative German community-based cohort to compare the former Gleason Grading with the recently introduced ISUP Grade Groups. Our data indicate that the ISUP Grade Groups do not improve predictive value of PCa grading and might be less sensitive in deciphering tumors with 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 pattern on RP specimen. However, the Grade Group system results less frequently in an upgrading from biopsy to the corresponding RP specimens, indicating a lower risk to miss potentially aggressive tumors not represented on biopsies.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Other 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,879,230
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,287
of 5,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,861
of 321,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#30
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.