ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
A modified sampling method for the precise detection of prostate cancer tissues using a three-dimensional stereotaxic location technique.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rapid and accurate acquisition of prostate cancer pathological tissue is critical to prostate cancer research but has traditionally proven challenging. However, the gradual application of three-dimensional (3D) modeling in medical practice has overcome many of the related limitations. This cohort study aimed to compare the difference between a 3D stereotaxic sampling method and traditional cognitive sampling method to clarify the factors affecting sampling. Methods: An analysis of 111 men who received radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer at The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University between November 2020 and April 2022 was conducted. The positive rate of the cognitive sampling method and the 3D stereotaxic sampling method and their respective influencing factors, such as age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade, tumor volume, number of positive needles from perineal puncture, clinical T stage, and tumor image location, were compared and analyzed, and a cohort study was conducted. Results: Among the 111 patients, there were 57 cases of cognitive sampling and 54 cases of 3D stereotaxic sampling. In this study, the positive rate of cognitive sampling was 29.82% (17/57,), and the positive rate of 3D stereotaxic sampling was 61.11% (33/54), with the positive rate of 3D stereotaxic sampling being significantly higher than that of cognitive sampling (P=0.001). In cognitive sampling, tumor volume [odds ratio (OR) =1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.20], number of positive biopsy cores (OR =1.30; 95% CI: 1.06-1.60), Prostate Imaging Report and Data System (PI-RADS) score (OR =5.54; 95% CI: 1.60-19.12), and clinical T stage (OR =2.36; 95% CI: 1.31-4.25) were identified as influencing factors; in 3D stereotaxic sampling, these influencing factors were eliminated, with ORs of 1.22 (95% CI: 0.78-1.90), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.72-1.09), 1.09 (95% CI: 0.62-1.92), and 1.51 (95% CI: 0.86-2.65), respectively, representing a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Conclusions: The 3D stereotaxic sampling method can accurately obtain the required prostate cancer tissue from the prostate
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.