Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31588959›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2019

Digital versus light microscopy assessment of extraprostatic extension in radical prostatectomy samples.

Metka Volavšek, Vanessa Henriques, Ana Blanca, Rodolfo Montironi, Liang Cheng, Maria R Raspollini, Alessia Cimadamore, Nuno Vau, Francesco Pierconti, Antonio Lopez-Beltran

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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.

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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Metka VolavšekInstitute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2878-4877
Vanessa HenriquesPathology Service, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ana BlancaMaimonides Biomedical Research Institute of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain.
Rodolfo MontironiInstitute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, School of Medicine, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona), United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy.
Liang ChengDepartments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and Urology, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Maria R RaspolliniHistopathology and Molecular Diagnostics, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Alessia CimadamoreInstitute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, School of Medicine, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona), United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy.
Nuno VauUrologic Oncology, 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 and Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. em1lobea@uco.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3161-8164
Champalimaud Foundation · PTMarche Polytechnic University · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITIndiana University Indianapolis · USInstituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba · ESUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Focal or non-focal/extensive extraprostatic extension of prostate carcinoma is an important pathologic prognostic parameter to be reported after radical prostatectomy. Currently, there is no agreement on how to measure and what are the best cutoff points to be used in practice. We hypothesized that digital microscopy would potentially provide more objective measurements of extraprostatic extension, thus better defining its clinical significance. To further our knowledge on digital prostate pathology, we evaluated the status of extraprostatic extension in 107 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomy samples, using digital and conventional light microscopy. Mean linear and radial measurements of extraprostatic extension by digital microscopy significantly correlated to pT status (p = 0.022 and p = 0.050, respectively) but only radial measurements correlated to biochemical recurrence (p = 0.042) and grade groups (p = 0.022). None of the measurements, whether conventional or digital, were associated with lymph node status. Receiving operating characteristic analysis showed a potential cutoff point to assess linear measurements by conventional (< vs. > 24.21 mm) or digital microscopy (< vs. > 15 mm) or by radial measurement (< vs. > 1.6 mm). Finally, we observed an association between the number of paraffin blocks bearing EPE with pT (p = 0.041) status (digital microscopy), and linear measurements by conventional (p = 0.044) or digital microscopy (p = 0.045) with lymph node status. Reporting EPE measurements by digital microscopy, both linear and radial, and the number of paraffin blocks with EPE, might provide additional prognostic features after radical prostatectomy.

Indexed as

AgedDisease-Free SurvivalHumansMaleMicroscopyMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisProstateProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsProstate-Specific AntigenBiochemical recurrenceDigital microscopyDigital pathologyExtraprostatic extensionProstate cancerRadical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID31588959
OpenAlexW2979798629

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.