ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2022
Is the systematic histological analysis of benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical specimen always necessary?
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term results of multimodal treatment of the prostate using the Thulium Laser.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAfter most surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), the resected tissue undergoes a histological examination. This examination is performed for the risk of finding an incidental prostate cancer (iPCa). The improvement of prostate cancer detection in the past few years decreased the global iPCa rate. This raises the question of the real benefit for all patients of a systematic histological analysis. The aim of our study was to evaluate the iPCa detection rate on a large contemporary cohort of patients treated for BPH, and to define predictive factors of iPCa detection. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the medical charts of all consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment for BPH in our academic center from 2012 to 2018. Patients with prostate cancer diagnosed before surgery were not included. All the resected tissue underwent standard histopathological examination. iPCa was defined by any grade or stage of prostate cancer identified on the resected tissue by the histological examination. The following variables were analyzed using an uni- and multi-variable logistic regression as potential risk factors of iPCa: age, total PSA, PSA density (PSAd), prostate volume, technique used, weight of resected tissue and use of 5ARI medication.
results1045 patients were included in the study. Of them, 439 (42.0%), 206 (19.7%) and 400 (38.3%) underwent HoLEP, OP and TURP, respectively. iPCa was diagnosed in 94 (9.0%) of the 1045. Among them 15 (1.4%) were clinically significant (ISUP score ≥ 2). The multivariable logistic regression analysis identified age (p = 0.03) and PSA density (p < 0.001) as independent predictive factors for the detection of iPCa. Using the median of age and PSAd, we identified a population with 0% of iPCa in our cohort (age < 70 year-old and PSAd < 0.05 ng/mL/mL).
conclusionThe global iPCa rate was 9% in this contemporary large cohort of patients who underwent surgical treatment for BPH, with 1.4% of clinically significant cancer. Age and PSAd were independent predictive factors to find iPCa. Patients younger than 70 with a PSAd < 0.05 ng/mL/mL had 0% of iPCA in our cohort. In this specific population, we could probably avoid a systematical histological examination of the resected tissue.
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.