Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30531531›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of surgical pathology2019

Histopathologic False-positive Diagnoses of Prostate Cancer in the Age of Immunohistochemistry.

Luis Beltran, Amar S Ahmad, Holly Sandu, Sakunthala Kudahetti, Geraldine Soosay, Henrik Møller, Jack Cuzick, Daniel M Berney, Transatlantic Prostate Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of surgical pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03912883 (Prognostic Factors in Prostate Cancer for Patients Treated by Watchful Waiting), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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.

NCT03912883 active not recruitingnot on this map

Prognostic Factors in Prostate Cancer for Patients Treated by Watchful Waiting

TypeobservationalSponsorQueen Mary University of LondonRan1999 to 2030Enrolled3,350ConditionsProstate Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Luis BeltranDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust.
Amar S AhmadUK Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London.
Holly SanduUK Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London.
Sakunthala KudahettiDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London.
Geraldine SoosayDepartment of Pathology, Queen's Hospital, Romford, Essex.
Henrik MøllerSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Jack CuzickUK Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London.
Daniel M BerneyDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust.
Transatlantic Prostate Group
Queen Mary University of London · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBKing's College London · GBMolecular Oncology (United States) · USQueen's Hospital · GB

Funding

CANCER PREVENTION AND ETIOLOGY GRANTT32CA009629 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI ALBERTS, DAVID S · 1990 to 2001
$130k
Cancer Research UK 16891NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009629
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are few studies into the rate and causes of histopathologic false-positive diagnosis of prostate cancer. Only 2 of these, including a previous one from our group, incorporate survival data. In addition, in none of the previous studies had immunohistochemistry (IHC) been originally requested on any of the misdiagnosed cases. Diagnostic biopsies (n=1080) and transurethral resection of prostate specimens (n=314) from 1394 men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the United Kingdom but treated conservatively between 1990 and 2003 were reviewed by a panel of 3 genitourinary pathologists. Thirty-five cases were excluded for being potentially incomplete. Of the remaining 1359, 30 (2.2%) were reassigned to a nonmalignant category (26 benign and 4 suspicious for malignancy). IHC had been originally performed on 7 of these. The reasons for the errors were recorded on each case: adenosis (19), partial atrophy (3), prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (2), seminal vesicle epithelium (1), and hyperplasia (1). Follow-up of these men revealed only one prostate cancer-related death, possibly due to unsampled tumor. In conclusion, a relatively small number of prostate cancer mimics were responsible for a large proportion of the false-positive prostate cancer diagnoses and the use of IHC did not prevent the overcall of benign entities as cancer in approximately a quarter of these cases. Targeting these mimics at educational events and raising awareness of the pitfalls in the interpretation of IHC in prostate cancer diagnosis, emphasizing that glands within a suspicious focus should be treated as a whole rather than individually, may be beneficial in lowering the rate of false-positive diagnosis.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsCytodiagnosisFalse Positive ReactionsHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMiddle AgedProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID30531531
PMCPMC6375390
OpenAlexW2905447007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.