ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Imaging classification of prostate cancer with extracapsular extension and its impact on positive surgical margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Optimizing Diagnosis in Prostate Cancer-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- AutoRadAI: a versatile artificial intelligence framework validated for detecting extracapsular extension in prostate cancer.Biology methods & protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract: To explore the impact of different imaging classifications of prostate cancer (PCa) with extracapsular extension (EPE) on positive surgical margins (PSM) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Methods: Clinical data were collected for 114 patients with stage PT3a PCa admitted to Ningbo Yinzhou No. 2 Hospital from September 2019 to August 2023. Radiologists classified the EPE imaging of PCa into Type I, Type II, and Type III. A chi-square test or t-test was employed to analyze the factors related to PSM. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to determine the factors associated with PSM. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to calculate the area under the curve and evaluate the diagnostic performance of our model. Clinical decision curve analysis was performed to assess the clinical net benefit of EPE imaging classification, biopsy grade group (GG), and combined model. Results: Among the 114 patients, 58 had PSM, and 56 had negative surgical margins. Multivariate analysis showed that EPE imaging classification and biopsy GG were risk factors for PSM after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The areas under the curve for EPE imaging classification and biopsy GG were 0.677 and 0.712, respectively. The difference in predicting PSM between EPE imaging classification and biopsy GG was not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, when used in combination, the diagnostic efficiency significantly improved, with an increase in the area under the curve to 0.795 (P<0.05). The clinical decision curve analysis revealed that the clinical net benefit of the combined model was significantly higher than that of EPE imaging classification and biopsy GG. Conclusions: EPE imaging classification and biopsy GG were associated with PSM after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and their combination can significantly improve the accuracy of predicting PSM.
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.