Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35710851›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2022

The significance of the extent of tissue embedding for the detection of incidental prostate carcinoma on transurethral prostate resection material: the more, the better?

Jens Köllermann, Benedikt Hoeh, Daniel Ruppel, Kevin Smith, Henning Reis, Mike Wenzel, Felix Preisser, Marina Kosiba, Philipp Mandel, Pierre I Karakiewicz and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Incidental carcinoma of the prostate in cystoprostatectomy specimens - is it always a toothless lion?Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    Article
  3. 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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jens Köllermann *Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. jens.koellermannn@kgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8495-6621
Benedikt Hoeh *Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Daniel RuppelDr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Kevin SmithDr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Henning ReisDr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Mike WenzelDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Felix PreisserDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Marina KosibaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Philipp MandelDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Andreas BeckerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Felix K H ChunDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Peter WildDr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Luis A KluthDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) detection rates of different embedding methods in a large, contemporary cohort of patients with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) treated with transurethral surgery. We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify BOO patients who underwent either transurethral loop resection or laser (Holmium:yttrium-aluminium garnet) enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) between 01/2012 and 12/2019. Embedding methods differed with regard to the extent of the additional prostate tissue submitted following the first ten cassettes of primary embedding (cohort A: one [additional] cassette/10 g residual tissue vs. cohort B: complete embedding of the residual tissue). Detection rates of iPCa among the different embedding methods were compared. Subsequently, subgroup analyses by embedding protocol were repeated in HoLEP-treated patients only. In the overall cohort, the iPCa detection rate was 11% (46/420). In cohort A (n = 299), tissue embedding resulted in a median of 8 cassettes/patient (range 1-38) vs. a median of 15 (range 2-74) in cohort B (n = 121) (p < .001). The iPCa detection rate was 8% (23/299) and 19% (23/121) in cohort A vs. cohort B, respectively (p < .001). Virtual reduction of the number of tissue cassettes to ten cassettes resulted in a iPCa detection rate of 96% in both cohorts, missing one stage T1a/ISUP grade 1 carcinoma. Increasing the number of cassettes by two and eight cassettes, respectively, resulted in a detection rate of 100% in both cohorts without revealing high-grade carcinomas. Subgroup analyses in HoLEP patients confirmed these findings, demonstrated by a 100 vs. 96% iPCa detection rate following examination of the first ten cassettes, missing one case of T1a/ISUP 1. Examination of 8 additional cassettes resulted in a 100% detection rate. The extent of embedding of material obtained from transurethral prostate resection correlates with the iPCa detection rate. However, the submission of 10 cassettes appears to be a reasonable threshold to reduce resource utilization while maintaining secure cancer detection.

Indexed as

CarcinomaLaser TherapyProstatic HyperplasiaProstatic NeoplasmsTransurethral Resection of ProstateUrinary Bladder Neck ObstructionAluminumHolmiumHumansMaleProstateTissue EmbeddingTreatment OutcomeYttriumAluminumHolmiumYttriumHoLEPHolmium laser enucleationIncidental prostate cancerProstate cancerTransurethral resection of the prostateTUR-P

Identifiers

PMID35710851
PMCPMC9485088
OpenAlexW4283033315

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.