Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39222123›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2025

A single-center retrospective comparison of pT1 substaging methods in bladder cancer.

Johannes Kläger, Maximilian C Koeller, André Oszwald, Gabriel Wasinger, David D'Andrea, Eva Compérat

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2025. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors.

Johannes KlägerDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Johannes.klaeger@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5761-0713
Maximilian C KoellerDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9699-3390
André OszwaldDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8298-6381
Gabriel WasingerDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0323-7180
David D'AndreaDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1625-1077
Eva CompératDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8488-543X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Substaging of T1 urothelial cancer is associated with tumor progression and its reporting is recommended by international guidelines. However, it has not been integrated in risk stratification tools and there is no agreement on the best method to use for its reporting. We aimed to investigate the applicability, interobserver variability, and prognostic value of histological landmark based and micrometric (aggregate linear length of invasive carcinoma (ALLICA), microscopic vs. extensive system, Rete Oncologica Lombarda (ROL) system) substaging methods. A total of 79 patients with the primary diagnosis of T1 urothelial cancer treated with conventional transurethral resection and adjuvant BCG therapy between 2000 and 2020 at the Medical University of Vienna were included. The anatomical and metrical substaging systems were evaluated using agreement rate, Cohen's kappa, Kendall's tau, and Spearman rank correlation. Prognostic value for high-grade recurrence or T2 progression was evaluated in uni- and multivariable analysis. Applicability and reproducibility were good to moderate and varied between substaging methods. Obstacles are mainly due to fragmentation of samples. Anatomical substaging was associated with progression in univariable and multivariable analysis. In our cohort, we could only identify anatomical landmark-based substaging to be prognostic for T2 progression. A major obstacle for proper pathological assessment is fragmentation of samples due to operational procedure. Avoiding such fragmentation might improve reproducibility and significance of pathological T1 substaging of urothelial cancer.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellNeoplasm StagingUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overBCG VaccineDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesBCG VaccineAnatomical substagingInterobserver variabilityMetrical substagingStaging urothelial carcinomaT1 urothelial cancerT1 urothelial cancer substagingUrothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID39222123
PMCPMC12018629

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.