Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32574142›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2020

Discrepancy in pathology reports upon second review of radical orchiectomy specimens for testicular germ cell tumors.

Gregory J Nason, Joan Sweet, Lauren Landoni, Ricardo Leao, Lynn Anson-Cartwright, Spencer Mok, Vanessa Guzylak, Andrea D'Angelo, Zhi Yi Fang, Ilana Geist and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Canadian Urological Association consensus guideline: Management of testicular germ cell cancer.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    Article
  5. Clinical dilemmas in local and regional testis cancer.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Review
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

13 authors.

Gregory J NasonDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Joan SweetDepartment of Pathology and Lab Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lauren LandoniDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ricardo LeaoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lynn Anson-CartwrightDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Spencer MokDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Vanessa GuzylakDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Andrea D'AngeloDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Zhi Yi FangDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ilana GeistDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Padraig WardeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael A S JewettDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Robert J HamiltonDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe sought to evaluate the discrepancies between primary pathology report and second pathology review of radical orchiectomy (RO) specimens.

methodsA retrospective review was performed of RO specimens from the Ontario Cancer Registry. All cases required both a primary pathology report and a second pathology review from another institution. Histopathological variables assessed included histological subtype and components of mixed germ cell tumor (GCT), pathological tumor (pT) stage, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), spermatic cord invasion, and surgical margin.

resultsBetween 1994 and 2015, 5048 ROs were performed with 2719 (53.9%) seminoma and 2029 (40.2%) non-seminoma. Of these, 519 (10.3%) received a second pathology review. There was concordance between primary pathology report and second pathology review in 326 (62.8%) cases. The most common discrepancies involved a change in pT stage (n=148, 28.5%), with upstaging in 83 (16%) and downstaging in 65 (12.5%) cases relative to the original pT stage. The second most common discrepancy regarded the reporting of LVI (n=121, 23.3%), with 62 (11.9%) reporting presence of LVI when the primary pathology report did not. Other discrepancies included a change in the histological subtype in 28 (5.4%) cases and spermatic cord margin status in five (9.6%) cases.

conclusionsOnly 10% of orchiectomy specimens underwent a second pathology review, with nearly 40% of reviews leading to a meaningful change in parameters. Such variation could lead to incorrect tumor staging, estimate of relapse risk, and inappropriate treatment decisions. Expert pathology review of RO specimens should be considered, as it has significant implications for decision-making.

Identifiers

PMID32574142
PMCPMC7704081

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.