Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33534005›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2021

Interobserver reproducibility of perineural invasion of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies.

Lars Egevad, Brett Delahunt, Hemamali Samaratunga, Toyonori Tsuzuki, Henrik Olsson, Peter Ström, Cecilia Lindskog, Tomi Häkkinen, Kimmo Kartasalo, Martin Eklund and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-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.

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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Detection of perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsies with deep neural networks.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Lars EgevadDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Radiumhemmet P1:02, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden. lars.egevad@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8531-222X
Brett DelahuntDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5398-0300
Hemamali SamaratungaAquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Toyonori TsuzukiDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Aichi Medical University, School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Henrik OlssonDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Peter StrömDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1631-806X
Cecilia LindskogDepartment of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Tomi HäkkinenFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Kimmo KartasaloDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Martin EklundDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pekka RuusuvuoriFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Karolinska Institutet · SETampere University · FIAichi Medical University · JPKarolinska University Hospital · SEThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Otago · NZUniversity of Turku · FIUppsala University · SE

Funding

Cancerfonden CAN 2017/210
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown a correlation between perineural invasion (PNI) in prostate biopsies and outcome. The reporting of PNI varies widely in the literature. While the interobserver variability of prostate cancer grading has been studied extensively, less is known regarding the reproducibility of PNI. A total of 212 biopsy cores from a population-based screening trial were included in this study (106 with and 106 without PNI according to the original pathology reports). The glass slides were scanned and circulated among four pathologists with a special interest in urological pathology for assessment of PNI. Discordant cases were stained by immunohistochemistry for S-100 protein. PNI was diagnosed by all four observers in 34.0% of cases, while 41.5% were considered to be negative for PNI. In 24.5% of cases, there was a disagreement between the observers. The kappa for interobserver variability was 0.67-0.75 (mean 0.73). The observations from one participant were compared with data from the original reports, and a kappa for intraobserver variability of 0.87 was achieved. Based on immunohistochemical findings among discordant cases, 88.6% had PNI while 11.4% did not. The most common diagnostic pitfall was the presence of bundles of stroma or smooth muscle. It was noted in a few cases that collagenous micronodules could be mistaken for a nerve. The distance between cancer and nerve was another cause of disagreement. Although the results suggest that the reproducibility of PNI may be greater than that of prostate cancer grading, there is still a need for improvement and standardization.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedBiopsyHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessObserver VariationProstateProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsPathologyPerineural invasionProstate cancerReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID33534005
PMCPMC8203540
OpenAlexW3126630726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.