ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2021
Feasibility study for
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Ex Vivo Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy (FCM) Ensures Representative Tissue in Prostate Cancer Biobanking: A Feasibility Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Ex Vivo Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy (FCM) of Prostate Biopsies Rethought: Opportunities of Intraoperative Examinations of MRI-Guided Targeted Biopsies in Routine Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Ex Vivo Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy in Specimens of the Liver: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Cancers · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Ex Vivo Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy in the Assessment of Diagnostic Biopsies of the Prostate.Cancers · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM) is a novel micro-imaging technique providing optical sections of examined tissue. The method has been well established for the diagnosis of tumours in dermatological specimens. Preliminary results found good feasibility when this technique was used to examine prostate cancer (PCa) specimens.
methodsWe report on the application of FCM in magnet resonance imaging (MRI)-fused prostate biopsies (10 patients, total number of biopsy specimens: n=121) and compare the results to conventional histology.
resultsSpecific structures of the prostatic tissue were very well represented in the FCM images comparable to conventional histology. Prostate carcinoma was diagnosed with good sensitivity (79/68%) and high specificity (100%) by two pathologists with substantial/almost perfect levels of agreement with the results of conventional histology (kappa 0.79/0.86). Depending on the quality of the scans, malignant lesions of 1.8 mm and more in diameter were reliably diagnosed. Smaller lesions were rated as suspect for malignancy, but could not be consistently differentiated from reactive changes. Optimal image qualities were achieved in focus depths of up to 50 µm, whereas deeper scans led to insufficient representation of cytological features. Pre-treatment with acridine orange (AO) did not alter immunoreactivity of the tissue or its feasibility for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analyses and adequate amounts of DNA could be extracted for further polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based examinations.
conclusionsFCM seems to be a promising tool for the timely diagnosis in cases of PCa in patients requiring therapy. In particular, this technique is a material-sparing method that conserves the biopsies as unfixed material for further analysis such as molecular tumour companion diagnosis.
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.