Validation of an RNA cell cycle progression score for predicting death from prostate cancer in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Most commercially available tissue-based genomic assays, including Oncotype DX, Prolaris, and Decipher, are based on RNA expression profiling and quantify gene activity associated with proliferation, androgen receptor signaling, and metastatic potential.
“Most commercially available assays, including Oncotype DX, Prolaris, and Decipher, are based on RNA expression profiling and quantify gene activity associated with proliferation, androgen receptor signaling, and metastatic potential [4, 11–13].”
From A decision-oriented framework for genomic testing across the prostate cancer continuum (2026) · cites this paper as [13]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOncotype DX and Prolaris are primarily validated in biopsy tissue to inform initial risk stratification and decision-making between active surveillance and definitive treatment.
“Oncotype DX and Prolaris are primarily validated in biopsy tissue to inform initial risk stratification and decision-making between active surveillance and definitive treatment [11–13].”
From A decision-oriented framework for genomic testing across the prostate cancer continuum (2026) · cites this paper as [13]
The Methods (CCP score; page unavailable) link the studied cell-cycle progression assay to Prolaris, and the Discussion (page unavailable) says it can be generated from a diagnostic needle-biopsy core. The Results (Identification of a low-risk group suitable for active surveillance; page unavailable) use the score to identify men at low risk, supporting its relevance to pretreatment decisions. The paper does not address Oncotype DX or establish that both tests are primarily validated in biopsy tissue. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Lalonde, E., Ishkanian, A. S., Sykes, J., Fraser, M., Ross-Adams, H., Erho, N., Dunning, M. J., Halim, S., Lamb, A. D., Moon, N. C., et al. (2014) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(14)71021-6 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Albertsen JL Hanley JA Gleason DF Barry MJ 1998 Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer JAMA 280 975 980 9749479
- Albertsen PC Hanley JA Fine J 2005 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer JAMA 293 (17 2095 2101 15870412
- Andriole GL Crawford ED Grubb RL 3rd Buys SS Chia D Church TR Fouad MN Gelmann EP Kvale PA Reding DJ Weissfeld JL Yokochi LA O'Brien B Clapp JD Rathmell JM Riley TL Hayes RB Kramer BS Izmirlian G Miller AB Pinsky PF Prorok PC Gohagan JK Berg CD PLCO Project Team 2009 Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial N Engl J Med 360 (13 1310 1319 19297565 PMC2944770
- Bishoff JT Freedland SJ Gerber L Tennstedt P Reid J Welbourn W Graefen M Sangale Z Tikishvili E Park J Younus A Gutin A Lanchbury JS Sauter G Brawer M Stone S Schlomm T 2014 Prognostic utility of the CCP score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy J Urol 192 (2 409 414 24508632
- Cooperberg MR Pasta DJ Elkin EP Litwin MS Latini DM Du Chane J Carroll PR 2005 The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy J Urol 173 (6 1938 1942 15879786 PMC2948569
- Cooperberg MR Freedland SJ Pasta DJ Elkin EP Presti JC Jr Amling CL Terris MK Aronson WJ Kane CJ Carroll PR 2006 Multi-institutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy Cancer 107 (10 2384 2391 17039503
- Cooperberg MR Broering JM Carroll PR 2009 Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis J Natl Cancer Inst 101 878 887 19509351 PMC2697208
- Cooperberg MR Carroll PR Klotz L 2011 Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise J Clin Oncol 29 3669 3676 21825257
- Cooperberg MR Simko JP Cowan JE Reid JE Djalilvand A Bhatnagar S Gutin A Lanchbury JS Swanson GP Stone S Carroll PR 2013 Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort J Clin Oncol 31 (11 1428 1434 23460710
- Cuzick J Fisher G Kattan MW Berney D Oliver T Foster CS Møller H Reuter V Fearn P Eastham J Scardino P Transatlantic Prostate Group 2006 Long-term outcome among men with conservatively treated localised prostate cancer Br J Cancer 95 1186 1194 17077805 PMC2360576
- Cuzick J Swanson GP Fisher G Brothman AR Berney DM Reid JE Mesher D Speights VO Stankiewicz E Foster CS Møller H Scardino P Warren JD Park J Younus A Flake DD 2nd Wagner S Gutin A Lanchbury JS Stone S Transatlantic Prostate Group 2011 Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study Lancet Oncol 12 (3 245 255 21310658 PMC3091030
- Cuzick J Berney DM Fisher G Mesher D Møller H Reid JE Perry M Park J Younus A Gutin A Foster CS Scardino P Lanchbury JS Stone S Transatlantic Prostate Group 2012 Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort Br J Cancer 106 1095 1099 22361632 PMC3304411
- Cuzick J Thorat MA Andriole G Brawley OW Brown PH Culig Z Eeles RA Ford LG Hamdy FC Holmberg L Ilic D Key TJ La Vecchia C Lilja H Marberger M Meyskens FL Minasian LM Parker C Parnes HL Perner S Rittenhouse H Schalken J Schmid HP Schmitz-Dräger BJ Schröder FH Stenzl A Tombal B Wilt TJ Wolk A 2014 Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer Lancet Oncol 15 (11 e484 e492 25281467 PMC4203149
- Dall'Era MA Albertsen PC Bangma C Carroll PR Carter HB Cooperberg MR Freedland SJ Klotz LH Parker C Soloway MS 2012 Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature Eur Urol 62 976 983 22698574
- Epstein JI Allsbrook WC Jr Amin MB Egevad LL ISUP Grading Committee 2005 The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 29 (9 1228 1242 16096414
- Epstein JI 2010 An update of the Gleason grading system J Urol 183 (2 433 440 20006878
- Freedland SJ Gerber L Reid J Welbourn W Tikishvili E Park J Younus A Gutin A Sangale Z Lanchbury JS Salama JK Stone S 2013 Prognostic utility of cell cycle progression score in men with prostate cancer after primary external beam radiation therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86 (5 848 853 23755923 PMC3710548
- Kattan MW Cuzick J Fisher G Berney DM Oliver T Foster CS Møller H Reuter V Fearn P Eastham J Scardino PT Transatlantic Prostate Group 2008 Nomogram incorporating PSA level to predict cancer-specific survival for men with clinically localized prostate cancer managed without curative intent Cancer 112 (1 69 74 18000803 PMC3390682
- May M Knoll N Siegsmund M Fahlenkamp D Vogler H Hoschke B Gralla O 2007 Validity of the CAPRA score to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Results from a European multicenter survey of 1,296 patients J Urol 178 (5 1957 1962 17868719
- Moyer VA U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2012 Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement Ann Intern Med 157 (2 120 134 22801674
- Schröder FH Hugosson J Roobol MJ Tammela TL Ciatto S Nelen V Kwiatkowski M Lujan M Lilja H Zappa M Denis LJ Recker F Páez A Määttänen L Bangma CH Aus G Carlsson S Villers A Rebillard X van der Kwast T Kujala PM Blijenberg BG Stenman UH Huber A Taari K Hakama M Moss SM de Koning HJ Auvinen A ERSPC Investigators 2012 Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up N Engl J Med 366 (11 981 990Erratum in: N Engl J Med May 31;366(22):2137. 22417251 PMC6027585
- Sommariva S Tarricone R Lazzeri M Ricciardi W Montorsi F 2014 Prognostic value of the cell cycle progression score in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Urole-pub ahead of print 4 December 2014doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.038 25481455 · DOI
- Zhao KH Hernandez DJ Han M Humphreys EB Mangold LA Partin AW 2008 External validation of University of California, San Francisco, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score Urology 72 (2 396 400 18372031
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A decision-oriented framework for genomic testing across the prostate cancer continuum
Cobran, E. K., Samadder, N. J., Schaid, D. J., Conti, D. V., Haiman, C., Vargas, L., Gionfriddo, M. R., & Tilburt, J. C. (2026) · Cancer Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.cancergen.2026.06.002 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- on behalf of the Transatlantic Prostate Group, Cuzick, J., Stone, S., Fisher, G., Yang, Z. H., North, B. V., Berney, D. M., Beltran, L., Greenberg, D., Møller, H., Reid, J. E., Gutin, A., Lanchbury, J. S., Brawer, M., & Scardino, P.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2015-06-23
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 382-389
- ISSN
- 0007-0920
- 1532-1827
- PMC
- PMC4522632
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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
