ArticleDer Pathologe2012
[Importance of second opinions on histology of prostate biopsy specimens].
Article in Der Pathologe, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the second opinion directive in Germany reach the patient? A parallel-convergent mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Analysis of second opinion programs provided by German statutory and private health insurance - a survey of statutory and private health insurers.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- [Prostate biopsy - an unending story].Der Pathologe · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe significance of a second opinion on the histological findings of prostate carcinomas as well as suspicious lesions on core needle biopsy specimens was studied in cases from the year 2008. STUDY
designA total of 920 core needle biopsy specimens of the prostate were stained with H & E and when necessary immunohistochemical analyses were performed with basal cell markers p63, 34ßE12, PSA and AMACR (P504 S) and neuroendocrine markers such as synaptophysin and chromogranin. The modified Gleason grading system was used.
resultsIn 43.5% of suspicious lesions adenocarcinomas of the prostate were found. In 53.2% the findings of atypical small acinar proliferations or high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) were confirmed with a recommendation of serum PSA and morphological controls. The suspicion of prostatic carcinoma could be confirmed in 87.2% by the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma. After Gleason grading 82.8% of all diagnosed carcinomas had scores 6 or 7(3 + 4) and belonged to the group of low grade carcinomas. High grade carcinomas were without diagnostic problems.
conclusionA second opinion on the histological analysis of suspicious lesions of the prostate as well as of confirmation of Gleason grading is a very important point of quality management of diagnostic steps of prostate carcinomas and may be helpful for different therapeutic strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22033652What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.