Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24563275›Full record

ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2014

Accurate determination of the pathological stage with gross dissection protocol for radical cystectomy.

Farkas Sükösd, Béla Iványi, László Pajor

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. What can be more prognostic than the pTNM category assessed on radical cystectomy specimens?Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2015
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Farkas SükösdDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, 2 Állomás u., Szeged, Hungary, 6720, sukosd.farkas@med.u-szeged.hu.
Béla Iványi
László Pajor

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current protocol for reporting urinary bladder cancer in radical cystectomies may exhibit limitations in the diagnostic accuracy, such as a risk of understaging, especially in cases with prostatic involvement. Difficulty can arise in the verification of stage pT0, and the assessment of surgical margins is suboptimal. We have developed a daily gross dissection protocol practice where radical cystectomies are totally embedded and evaluated histologically in whole-mount sections. We report here on the first 138 consecutive specimens from 2008 to the first quarter of 2012 inclusive. The incidence of the cancer stages was compared with data on 15,586 radical cystectomies from the literature. The differences were analyzed with the one-sample z-test (p < 0.05). The following emerged from and our series and the literature data: pT0 8.7 % and 6.1 %; pTa 0.7 % and 2.9 %; pTis 2.9 % and 6 %; pT1 15.2 % and 15.5 %; pT2 21 % and 23.3 %; pT3 34.8 % and 34.3 %; and pT4 16.7 % and 11 %, respectively. Our findings closely reflected the means of the published statistical data based on a large number of cases. The differences were due to the more detailed processing: the case numbers in groups from pTis to pT2 were comparatively low, while those in groups pT3 and pT4 were higher. The difference in group pT4 was significant (p = 0.0494). With this method, only those samples were regarded as pT0 in which the granulomatous area and the hemosiderin deposition indicative of the earlier intervention were observable and the entire preparation was tumor-free.

Indexed as

CystectomyDissectionAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisUrinary Bladder Neoplasms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.