Home » Reviews
Serum PSA, Gleason Score and Clinical Staging in Predicting Biochemical (PSA) Failure After Radical Prostatectomy for Carcinoma of Prostate
By Mr. Anthony Kodzo - Grey Venyo , Dr. Shahid Imran , Dr. Sarang Shah , Ms. Ruth Gordon , Mr. Douglas Barnes
Submited on: 10 Apr 2012 03:21:05 AM GMT
Published on: 10 Apr 2012 05:42:19 PM GMT
 
nothing new
Posted by Dr. Ahmed F Kotb on 05 Jun 2012 12:54:52 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    predicting factors for biochemical recurrence post radical prostatectomy

    very important but very standard, the paper adds nothing


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    no, nothing new


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    the authors couldn't reach good conclusion, due to the small number of cases.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    not applicable


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    poor analysis due to small number of cases


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    if the authors would have prostate tissues, may be some immunohistochemical staining would add to their work.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    no, it adds nothings


  • Other Comments:

    authors are great, they like to do good job. but; in writing about things that are well settled in literatures and textbooks, they need to look for a small point that is new or even study the same parameters as they did but on a larger cohort of patients.

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Ahmed Kotb, Ahmed Elabbady. Prognostic factors for the development of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate cancer 2011; 2011: 485189. Ahmed Kotb, Simon Tanguay, Murilo Luz, Wassim Kassouf, Armen Aprikian. Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases Journal 2011 Mar; 14(1): 53- 7.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Kotb A F.nothing new[Review of the article 'Serum PSA, Gleason Score and Clinical Staging in Predicting Biochemical (PSA) Failure After Radical Prostatectomy for Carcinoma of Prostate ' by Barnes D].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001862
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
serum PSA, Gleason Score andclinical staging in predicting biochemical(PSA) FAILURE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR CARCINOMA OF PROSTATE
Posted by Mr. Joseph O Odey on 11 May 2012 03:21:51 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This is a good paper that adds further information on the biological behaviour of prostate cancer,

    in that patients with high PSA, high grade,high tumour category have a greater risk of developing PSA FAILURE after radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer.

    By the same token the individual parameters of PSA,GLEASON SCORE and TUMOUR CATEGORY are not sufficient to completely distinguish between those patients who will develop PSA failure after radical prostatectomy. 

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

     I have been involved in the management of prostate cancer for more than 20 years

  • How to cite:  Odey J O.serum PSA, Gleason Score andclinical staging in predicting biochemical(PSA) FAILURE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR CARCINOMA OF PROSTATE[Review of the article 'Serum PSA, Gleason Score and Clinical Staging in Predicting Biochemical (PSA) Failure After Radical Prostatectomy for Carcinoma of Prostate ' by Barnes D].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001795
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review of pre-op PSA, Gleason score and Clinical stage of disease in predicting biochemical recurrence post radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
Posted by Prof. Akanimo Essiet on 30 Apr 2012 08:21:50 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments: 3. Original but not new contribution 5. The whole text could be shorter without loosing any information 6. Under the Materials and Methods section, the sub-sections on Data collection and Analysis of results can be abridged without any loss of information.
  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Eke, N and Essiet, A. Cancer of the prostate gland: So much verbiage, so little mileage. Journal of the West African college of surgeons. Jan-Mar 2011; 1: 2-30.
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    Practicing urologist in a university hospital setting, with over 15 years experience in the care of prostate cancer patients
  • How to cite:  Essiet A .Review of pre-op PSA, Gleason score and Clinical stage of disease in predicting biochemical recurrence post radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.[Review of the article 'Serum PSA, Gleason Score and Clinical Staging in Predicting Biochemical (PSA) Failure After Radical Prostatectomy for Carcinoma of Prostate ' by Barnes D].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001757
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
 
 
We use cookies on this website to measure and improve performance. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.