Cited by 57Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchCancer Diagnosis and Treatment

The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate

Nguyen, Paul L, Schultz, Delray, Renshaw, Andrew A, Vollmer, Robin T, Welch, William R, Cote, Kerri, D’Amico, Anthony V·2004·Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Abstract

This study was designed to estimate the frequency with which changes in Gleason score because of a genitourinary pathologist's review changed prostate cancer treatment recommendations. The study cohort consisted of 602 patients who presented to a genitourinary oncologist for a second opinion after being diagnosed with prostate cancer based on a needle biopsy at a nonacademic institution from 1989 through 2001. Each of the prostate biopsy specimens was sent for review by a genitourinary pathologist. Applying the rule that low-risk patients would receive monotherapy, and intermediate or high-risk patients would receive combined modality therapy, the frequency with which treatment recommendations were changed by pathology review was calculated. Pathology review by a genitourinary pathologist changed the Gleason score by at least 1 point in 44% of cases. Upgrades were more common than downgrades and accounted for 81% [95% confidence interval: 76-86%] of the changes. Patients' risk category was increased in 10.8% of cases and was decreased in 3.4%. Risk category was changed from low risk to intermediate or high risk in 8.2%, but was changed from intermediate or high risk to low risk in only 0.9%. Genitourinary pathology review would have changed management in approximately 10% of men, mainly in the direction of combined therapy over monotherapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1078-1439(03)00236-9

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is estimated that the error rate of cancer histopathology can be as high as 23%.

    “This is important, as it is estimated that the error rate of cancer histopathology can be as high as 23% (20–23).”

    From Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data (2016) · cites this paper as [21]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen, P. L., Schultz, D., Renshaw, A. A., Vollmer, R. T., Welch, W. R., Cote, K., & D’Amico, A. V.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Millersville University (US)
  • Baptist Hospital of Miami (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Venue
Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-07
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
295-299
ISSN
1078-1439 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007494001
Cited by
57
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Urologic Oncology Seminars and Original Investigations (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
prostate adenocarcinoma, Gleason score, pathology review, second opinion, prostate biopsy, risk stratification, treatment guidelines, multimodal therapy, monotherapy, Gleason score upgrade
MeSH terms
Adenocarcinoma, Aged, Combined Modality Therapy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Patient Care Planning, Prostatic Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Observer Variation, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review