Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34184100›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2021

[Conventional grading vs. molecular grading : Decision aids for clinical routine].

C Kakies, D Louise Dräger, P Spiess, O W Hakenberg, C Protzel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

C KakiesZEMODIAG, Zentrum für morphologische Diagnostik Leipzig, Muldentalstraße 66, 04288, Leipzig, Deutschland. c.kakies@zemodiag.de.
D Louise DrägerKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Rostock, Deutschland.
P SpiessDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, University of Texas, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA.
O W HakenbergKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Rostock, Deutschland.
C ProtzelKlinik für Urologie, Helios-Klink Schwerin, Schwerin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional histopathological grading of a cancer is of utmost importance for the management and prognosis of the patient. Histopathological grading is predominantly a function of the differentiation and proliferation of tumor cells, the amount of necrosis present and the pattern of invasion. In addition, the molecular set-up of a given cancer which can be determined to some degree by immunohistochemistry or by methods analyzing genetic and epigenetic alterations can be used in some instances to improve the information gained by conventional histopathologic grading. Indeed, this latter option implies the promise of individualized tumor therapy. While this promise is on the horizon, the clinical implications for penile cancer are not yet transferable to individualized penile cancer treatment.

Indexed as

Penile NeoplasmsDecision Support TechniquesHumansImmunohistochemistryLymphatic MetastasisMaleNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPrognosisLymph node metastasisMalignancyPenile cancerTreatment selectionTumor differentiation

Identifiers

PMID34184100

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.