ArticleEuropean urology oncology2020
Relative Contribution of Sampling and Grading to the Quality of Prostate Biopsy: Results from a Single High-volume Institution.
Article in European urology oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic discordance in outside prostate biopsies: Implications for active surveillance patient selection.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Article
- Optimizing the strategies to perform prostate biopsy in MRI-positive patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Histopathological evaluation and grading for prostate cancer: current issues and crucial aspects.Asian journal of andrology · 2024Review
- Importance of biopsy sample length for cancer diagnosis during trans-perineal prostate biopsy.BMC urology · 2024Article
- Positive Surgical Margins After Anterior Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Assessing the Learning Curve in a Multi-institutional Collaboration.European urology oncology · 2024Article
- The Surgical Learning Curve for Biochemical Recurrence After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.European urology oncology · 2023Article
- Combining PSA and PET features to select candidates for salvage lymph node dissection in recurrent prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2023Article
- Combining targeted and systematic prostate biopsy improves prostate cancer detection and correlation with the whole mount histopathology in biopsy naïve and previous negative biopsy patients.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Predicting the probability of pT3 or higher pathological stage at radical prostatectomy: COVID19-specific considerations.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- The impact of race/ethnicity on upstaging and/or upgrading rates among intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Reassessment of Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Patients Referred for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Rarely Influences Surgical Planning.European urology open science · 2021Article
- Long-term Outcomes of Salvage Lymph Node Dissection for Nodal Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: Not as Good as Previously Thought.European urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of prostate biopsy is affected by sampling (does the urologist take cores from the right place?) and the histological evaluation (does the pathologist grade correctly?).
objectiveTo evaluate the relative contribution of sampling and histological evaluation to the reliability of prostate biopsy in terms of concordance with grading of the surgical specimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsWe identified 848 prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2017 at our institution with external or internal biopsies. Since 2016, a dedicated uropathologist has reviewed all the biopsies sampled externally. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We considered the discordance between biopsy and final pathology as a proxy for the quality of prostate biopsy, and calculated the corresponding discordance rate for each biopsy setting. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We observed the highest rate of grade discordance for patients who had an external biopsy without internal review (66%). Biopsies both sampled and reviewed internally had the lowest discrepancy rate (39%; p<0.0001 compared to external biopsies). Biopsies sampled outside our institution and reviewed internally had an intermediate discordance rate (51%; p=0.003).
conclusionsThe quality of prostate biopsy is influenced by both sampling and evaluation. Highly experienced pathological evaluation of needle biopsies is crucial, but biopsy quality also strongly depends on the quality of the sampled material. Future studies should investigate the mechanism underlying discordance in sampling. Consideration should be given to regionalization of prostate biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: The quality of prostate biopsy varies between specialist and community centers. We found that this variation is affected by both sampling (does the urologist take cores from the right place?) and histological evaluation (does the pathologist grade correctly?).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.