Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29453523›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2018

Digital versus light microscopy assessment of surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy.

Metka Volavšek, Ana Blanca, Rodolfo Montironi, Liang Cheng, Maria R Raspollini, Nuno Vau, Jorge Fonseca, Francesco Pierconti, Antonio Lopez-Beltran

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Metka VolavšekInstitute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Ana BlancaMaimonides Biomedical Research Institute of Cordoba, Spain, Cordoba, Spain.
Rodolfo MontironiInstitute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, School of Medicine, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona), United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy.
Liang ChengDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Maria R RaspolliniHistopathology and Molecular Diagnostics, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Nuno VauUrologic Oncology, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal.
Jorge FonsecaUrology Clinic, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal.
Francesco PiercontiDivision of Anatomic Pathology and Histology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, "Agostino Gemelli" School of Medicine, Rome, Italy.
Antonio Lopez-BeltranDepartment of Pathology, Unit of Anatomical Pathology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Cordoba, Spain. em1lobea@uco.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3161-8164

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Positive surgical margin (PSM) extension reported as focal or non-focal/extensive is an important pathologic prognostic parameter after radical prostatectomy. Likewise, there is limited or no agreement on how to measure and what the best cut-off points to be used in practice are. We hypothesized that digital microscopy (DM) would potentially provide a more objective way to measure PSM and better define its clinical significance. To further our knowledge, we have evaluated PSM status in 107 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies using digital and conventional light microscopy (LM). DM evaluation detected three additional PSM cases, but no differences were seen (LM vs DM; p = 0.220). Mean linear measurement correlated to biochemical recurrence (BR) (LM, p = 0.002; DM, p = 0.001). ROC analysis identified a cut-off point to assess linear measurement by LM (3.5 mm) or DM (3.2 mm), but only digital measurement was significant for BR-free survival. Our study also evaluated a cut-off ≤ 3 mm that was associated to BR using LM (p = 0.023) or DM (p = 0.001). Finally, the number of paraffin blocks bearing PSM correlated with BR (p < 0.001) status with either LM or DM. In conclusion, DM produces similar data than LM but shows more accurate measurements. Reporting of PSM with score of ≤ 3 vs. > 3 mm linear extent using LM (3.2 mm if digital microscopy is applied) might represent an important prognostic feature after radical prostatectomy. Alternatively, reporting the number of blocks with PSM 1 vs. 2 or more might also provide important prognostic data in practice.

Indexed as

Margins of ExcisionProstatectomyAgedDisease-Free SurvivalHumansMaleMicroscopyMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsProstate-Specific AntigenBiochemical recurrenceDigital microscopyDigital pathologyProstate cancerRadical prostatectomySurgical margin status

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.