Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Previous reports have shown that quantification of high tumour grade is of prognostic significance for patients with prostate cancer. In particular, percent Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) has been shown to predict outcome in several studies, although conflicting results have also been reported. A major issue with these studies is that they rely on surrogate markers of outcome rather than patient survival. We have investigated the prognostic predictive value of quantifying GP4 in a series of prostatic biopsies containing Gleason score 3+4=7 and 4+3=7 tumours. It was found that the length of GP4 tumour determined from the measurement of all biopsy cores from a single patient, percent GP4 present and absolute GP4 were all significantly associated with distant progression of tumour, all-cause mortality and cancer-specific mortality over a 10-year follow-up period. Assessment of the relative prognostic significance showed that these parameters outperformed division of cases according to Gleason score (3+4=7 versus 4+3=7). International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Groups currently divide these tumours, according to Gleason grading guidelines, into grade 2 (3+4=7) and grade 3 (4+3=7). Our results indicate that this simple classification results in the loss of important prognostic information. In view of this we would recommend that ISUP Grade Groups 2 and 3 be amalgamated as grade 2 tumour with the percentage of GP4 carcinoma being appended to the final grade, e.g., 3+4=7 carcinoma with 40% pattern 4 tumour would be classified as ISUP Grade Group 2 (40%).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2021.11.004 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!