ArticleDiagnostic pathology2024
Automatic analysis of nuclear features reveals a non-tumoral predictor of tumor grade in bladder cancer.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectivesTumor grade determines prognosis in urothelial carcinoma. The classification of low and high grade is based on nuclear morphological features that include nuclear size, hyperchromasia and pleomorphism. These features are subjectively assessed by the pathologists and are not numerically measured, which leads to high rates of interobserver variability. The purpose of this study is to assess the value of a computer-based image analysis tool for identifying predictors of tumor grade in bladder cancer.
methodsFour hundred images of urothelial tumors were graded by five pathologists and two expert genitourinary pathologists using a scale of 1 (lowest grade) to 5 (highest grade). A computer algorithm was used to automatically segment the nuclei and to provide morphometric parameters for each nucleus, which were used to establish the grading algorithm. Grading algorithm was compared to pathologists' agreement.
resultsComparison of the grading scores of the five pathologists with the expert genitourinary pathologists score showed agreement rates between 88.5% and 97.5%.The agreement rate between the two expert genitourinary pathologists was 99.5%. The quantified algorithm based conventional parameters that determine the grade (nuclear size, pleomorphism and hyperchromasia) showed > 85% agreement with the expert genitourinary pathologists. Surprisingly, the parameter that was most associated with tumor grade was the 10th percentile of the nuclear area, and high grade was associated with lower 10th percentile nuclei, caused by the presence of more inflammatory cells in the high-grade tumors.
conclusionQuantitative nuclear features could be applied to determine urothelial carcinoma grade and explore new biologically explainable parameters with better correlation to grade than those currently used.
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.