Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34194136›Full record

ArticleUrology annals

A second opinion pathology review improves the diagnostic concordance between prostate cancer biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Takanori Maehara, Takuya Sadahira, Yuki Maruyama, Koichiro Wada, Motoo Araki, Masami Watanabe, Toyohiko Watanabe, Hiroyuki Yanai, Yasutomo Nasu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 52% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Takanori MaeharaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Takuya SadahiraDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Yuki MaruyamaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Koichiro WadaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Motoo ArakiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Masami WatanabeDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Toyohiko WatanabeDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Hiroyuki YanaiDepartment of Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Yasutomo NasuDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Okayama University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Gleason scoring system is an essential tool for determining the treatment strategy in prostate cancer (PCa). However, the Gleason grade group (GGG) often differs between needle-core biopsy (NCB) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. We investigated the diagnostic value of a second opinion pathology review using NCB specimens in PCa. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 882 patients who underwent robot-assisted RP from January 2012 to September 2019. Of these, patients whose original biopsy specimens were obtained from another hospital and reviewed by the urological pathology expert at our institution were included in the study. Patients who received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were excluded from the study. Weighted kappa (k) coefficients were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of each review.

resultsA total of 497 patients were included in this study. Substantial agreement (weighted

conclusionsA second opinion of PCa pathology helps to improve the diagnostic accuracy of NCB specimens. However, over half of diagnoses that matched between the initial and second opinions differed from the diagnosis of RP specimens.

Indexed as

Gleason grade groupGleason scoreprostate biopsyprostate cancerprostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID34194136
PMCPMC8210712
OpenAlexW3134530267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.