ArticleCureus2024
Selective Histopathology Examination for Circumcision Specimens: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Time to rethink routine histopathology after adult circumcision? Long-term oncological outcomes from an 11-year cohort.World journal of urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Circumcision is a widely performed surgical procedure all over the globe. This can be for religious, cultural, or medical reasons. Routine histological examination of circumcision specimens is a standard practice in many healthcare systems, despite the relatively low incidence of premalignant or malignant lesions. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the necessity of routine histopathological examination of foreskin specimens following adult circumcision. Secondary objectives included determining the frequency of malignancy in these specimens, comparing malignancy rates between clinically suspicious and non-suspicious cases, and assessing the correlation between preoperative clinical suspicion and histopathological findings. Aim This study aimed to evaluate the necessity of routine histopathological evaluation for the foreskin after circumcision. We investigated the frequency of malignancy upon histopathological examination, in clinically suspicious cases compared to non-suspicious cases. Method A retrospective observational study was conducted at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital, analyzing data from 334 consecutive adult male patients who underwent circumcision between January 2012 and December 2016. The cohort was retrospectively divided into two groups: those with preoperative suspicious clinical features and those without it. Clinical records on electronic patient records (EPR) were used for follow-up and to identify the percentage of malignancy after final histopathological examinations in both groups. Results Among the 334 patients, only nine patients (2.7%) were deemed as having suspicious clinical features preoperatively, of which, only three (0.9% of the total study sample) showed malignancy upon histological examination. The other six patients in this group were found to have balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO). The other 325 patients (97.3%) were without clinically suspicious lesions preoperatively, and none were found to have any malignant lesions upon histopathological examination. Conclusion The low incidence of malignancy in circumcision specimens indicates that routine histological examination may not be essential for all cases. Among 334 samples, only three (0.9%) were malignant, and all were clinically suspected. Routine histopathological examination of the remaining 331 cases did not impact management or follow-up. Selectively submitting specimens for histology based on clinical suspicion could reduce opportunity costs and time, optimize resource allocation, and maintain appropriate diagnostic evaluation.
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.