The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gleason Score and Lethal Prostate Cancer: Does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3?
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: Gleason grading is an important predictor of prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes. Studies using surrogate PCa end points suggest outcomes for Gleason score (GS) 7 cancers vary according to the predominance of pattern 4. These studies have influenced clinical practice, but it is unclear if rates of PCa mortality differ for 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 tumors. Using PCa mortality as the primary end point, we compared outcomes in Gleason 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 cancers, and the predictive ability of GS from a standardized review versus original scoring. Patients and Methods: Three study pathologists conducted a blinded standardized review of 693 prostatectomy and 119 biopsy specimens to assign primary and secondary Gleason patterns. Tumor specimens were from PCa patients diagnosed between 1984 and 2004 from the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Lethal PCa (n = 53) was defined as development of bony metastases or PCa death. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to original GS and standardized GS. We compared the discrimination of standardized and original grading with C-statistics from models of 10-year survival. Results: For prostatectomy specimens, 4 + 3 cancers were associated with a three-fold increase in lethal PCa compared with 3 + 4 cancers (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.6). The discrimination of models of standardized scores from prostatectomy (C-statistic, 0.86) and biopsy (C-statistic, 0.85) were improved compared to models of original scores (prostatectomy C-statistic, 0.82; biopsy C-statistic, 0.72). Conclusion: Ignoring the predominance of Gleason pattern 4 in GS 7 cancers may conceal important prognostic information. A standardized review of GS can improve prediction of PCa survival.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 · Cited by 21,230
D'Amico, A. V. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.11.969 · Cited by 4,523
Natural History of Progression After PSA Elevation Following Radical Prostatectomy
Pound, C. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.281.17.1591 · Cited by 3,071
Hennekens, C. H., Buring, J. E., Manson, J. E., Stampfer, M., Rosner, B., Cook, N. R., Belanger, C., LaMotte, F., Gaziano, J. M., Ridker, P. M., et al. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199605023341801 · Cited by 2,397
Self-citationFinal Report on the Aspirin Component of the Ongoing Physicians' Health Study
Steering Committee of the Physicians' Health Study Research Group* (1989) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198907203210301 · Cited by 2,264
Gleason, D. F., Mellinger, G. T., & The Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group Members of this group areS0022534717598894-57c401330b4195dbd1713587ed540477 Lino J. Arduino Veterans Administration Center (VAC), D. M. (1974) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)59889-4 · Cited by 2,214
Partin, A. W. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.277.18.1445 · Cited by 1,794
Histologic grading of prostate cancer: A perspective
Gleason, D. F. (1992) · Human Pathology · doi:10.1016/0046-8177(92)90108-f · Cited by 1,034
D'Amico, A. V., Whittington, R., Malkowicz, S. B., Schultz, D., Blank, K., Broderick, G. A., Tomaszewski, J. E., Renshaw, A. A., Kaplan, I., Beard, C. J., et al. (1999) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)61700-2 · Cited by 713
Cited by
A prospective investigation of PTEN loss and ERG expression in lethal prostate cancer
Ahearn, T. U., Pettersson, A., Ebot, E. M., Gerke, T., Graff, R. E., Morais, C. L., Hicks, J. L., Wilson, K. M., Rider, J. R., Sesso, H. D., et al. (2015) · Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djv346 · Cited by 186
Self-citationBlume-Jensen, P., Berman, D. M., Rimm, D. L., Shipitsin, M., Putzi, M., Nifong, T. P., Small, C., Choudhury, S., Capela, T., Coupal, L., et al. (2015) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-2603 · Cited by 179
Self-citationLabbé, D. P., Zadra, G., Yang, M., Reyes, J. M., Lin, C. Y., Cacciatore, S., Ebot, E. M., Creech, A. L., Giunchi, F., Fiorentino, M., et al. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12298-z · Cited by 174
Self-citationQi, X., Karagoz, K., Ren, J., Foran, D. J., & Gatza, M. (2018) · Medical Imaging 2018: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare, Research, and Applications · doi:10.1117/12.2293193 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Stark, J. R., Perner, S., Stampfer, M. J., Sinnott, J. A., Finn, S., Eisenstein, A. S., Ma, J., Fiorentino, M., Kurth, T., Loda, M., Giovannucci, E. L., Rubin, M. A., & Mucci, L. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2009-07-20
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 3459-3464
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2168391852
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 20.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gleason Score and Lethal Prostate Cancer: Does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2008.20.4669
- The paper
- Stark, J. R., Perner, S., Stampfer, M. J., Sinnott, J. A., Finn, S., Eisenstein, A. S., Ma, J., Fiorentino, M., Kurth, T., Loda, M., Giovannucci, E. L., Rubin, M. A., & Mucci, L. A. (2009). Gleason Score and Lethal Prostate Cancer: Does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.20.4669
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
