↓ Skip to main content

Targeted Prostate Biopsy Gleason Score Heterogeneity and Implications for Risk Stratification

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Oncology: Cancer Clinical Trials, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.
Article details
Title
Targeted Prostate Biopsy Gleason Score Heterogeneity and Implications for Risk Stratification
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Oncology: Cancer Clinical Trials, May 2018
DOI 10.1097/coc.0000000000000308
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To quantify Gleason score (GS) heterogeneity within multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsies and to determine impact on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk stratification. An Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study was performed on men who underwent Artemis (MRI-transrectal-ultrasound fusion) targeted biopsy (TB) for suspected prostate cancer between 2012 and 2015. Intratarget heterogeneity was defined as a difference in GS between 2 cores within a single target in patients with ≥2 positive cores. Prostate specific antigen, maximum tumor diameter, apparent diffusion coefficient, MRI suspicion score, prostate volume, systematic biopsy (SB) GS, and T-stage were analyzed for correlation with heterogeneity. Changes in NCCN risk based on high versus low GS on TB, SB alone, and SB+TB were compared. Fifty-three patients underwent TB of 73 suspected lesions. Seventy percent (51/73) had ≥2 positive cores, thus meeting inclusion criteria for heterogeneity analysis. Fifty-five percent (28/51) of qualifying targets showed GS heterogeneity. None of the evaluated factors showed a significant relationship with heterogeneity. NCCN low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were 30%, 49%, and 21%, respectively, with SB alone. Adding low GS TB to SB resulted in 17%, 55%, 28% in each risk group, while using high GS+SB resulted in 4%, 54%, and 42%. Overall, the addition of TB resulted in higher NCCN risk groups in 38% of cases. Over half of multiparametric MRI-defined targets demonstrated GS heterogeneity. The addition of high GS from TB leads to risk inflation compared with using SB alone. Further research is needed on how to integrate these findings into current risk stratification models and clinical practice.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 41%
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 25 June 2016.
All research outputs
#23,324,569
of 34,400,738 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Oncology: Cancer Clinical Trials
#1,210
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,144
of 370,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Oncology: Cancer Clinical Trials
#16
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,400,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 370,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.