ReviewCancers2024
Cribriform versus Intraductal: How to Determine the Difference.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic value of cribriform pattern and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis using contemporary consensus recommendations.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Review
- Review
- Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: A comprehensive literature review focused on grading challenges and controversies.Histology and histopathology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the years, our understanding of cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer (PCa) has evolved significantly, leading to substantial changes in their classification and clinical management. This review discusses the histopathological disparities between intraductal and cribriform PCa from a diagnostic perspective, aiming to aid pathologists in achieving accurate diagnoses. Furthermore, it discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the different recommendations between ISUP and GUPS, which pose challenges for practicing pathologists and complicates consensus among them. Recent studies have shown promising results in integrating these pathological features into clinical decision-making tools, improving predictions of PCa recurrence, cancer spread, and mortality. Future research efforts should focus on further unraveling the biological backgrounds of these entities and their implications for clinical management to ultimately improve PCa patient outcomes.
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.