ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2020
[Reports of prostate needle biopsies-what pathologists provide and urologists want].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Localized prostate cancer].Der Pathologe · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prostate biopsy report is key for risk stratification of prostate cancer patients and subsequent therapeutic decision-making. However, due to the inclusion of a multitude of additional parameters its interpretation is becoming more challenging.
objectivesWe aimed to determine how urologists currently interpret prostate biopsy reports, in particular how they consider different histopathological parameters for therapy decision-making. MATERIALS AND
methodsA survey was sent to all urology practices in Germany with the help of the BDU (Berufsverband der Deutschen Urologen e. V.). In total, there were 106 complete responses that could be included for further analyses.
resultsMost urologists consider the number of positive cores and relative tumor burden (%) per core as crucial for the assessment of tumor extension. In case of targeted biopsies, the majority of urologists prefers a separate statement of positive cores per random biopsy scheme and per region of interest, respectively. The core with the highest Gleason score is mostly the basis for therapy decision-making (versus the overall Gleason score). Proportion of Gleason 4 pattern also seems to be critical for prostate cancer management. Only half of the urologists demand reporting of the new ISUP/WHO (International Society of Urological Pathology/World Health Organization) grade groups. Additional parameters claimed are Ki67, prostate-specific membrane antigen status, presence of intraductal or neuroendocrine component of the tumor.
conclusionsOur survey shows that there is no standardized reporting for prostate biopsies and that the interpretation of prostate biopsy reports varies among urologists. Further studies and guideline recommendations are necessary to establish a standardized reporting scheme for prostate biopsies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32016505What 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.