Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39548928›Full record

ArticleBJU international2025

Fluorescence confocal microscopy for margin assessment in prostatectomy: IP8-FLUORESCE study protocol.

Nikhil Mayor, Alexander Light, Anna Silvanto, Emma Cullen, Peng Yun Ng, Almostafa Badreldin, Bijan Khoubehi, Giles Hellawell, Francesca Fiorentino, Martin J Connor and 3 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Current role of HistologPathologica · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

13 authors.

Nikhil MayorImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Alexander LightImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7246-3651
Anna SilvantoDepartment of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Emma CullenImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Peng Yun NgDepartment of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service (NHS) Trust, London, UK.
Almostafa BadreldinDepartment of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service (NHS) Trust, London, UK.
Bijan KhoubehiDepartment of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service (NHS) Trust, London, UK.
Giles HellawellDepartment of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service (NHS) Trust, London, UK.
Francesca FiorentinoNightingale-Saunders Clinical Trials & Epidemiology Unit, King's Clinical Trials Unit & Division of Methodology, King's College London, London, UK.
Martin J ConnorImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Taimur T ShahImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1642-1208
Hashim U AhmedImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1674-6723
Mathias WinklerImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

John Black Charitable FoundationUrology Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadical prostatectomy (RP) represents the cornerstone of surgical treatment for prostate cancer. Assessing surgical margin status intraoperatively with current techniques remains challenging due to high costs in the context of an already stretched pathology workforce. Fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM) is a promising technique to detect margins in prostate cancer surgery not bound by such limitations. STUDY

designThe Imperial Prostate 8 - Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy for Rapid Evaluation of Surgical Cancer Excision (IP8-FLUORESCE) study is a multicentre, prospective, ex vivo, 'blinded', comparative cohort study. It aims to assess the accuracy of digital FCM for detection of prostate cancer at surgical margins compared to traditional histopathology. ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint is the accuracy of digital FCM for detection of prostate cancer at surgical margins on a per-patient level, reported with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. PATIENTS AND

methodsA total of 153 patients with localised prostate cancer undergoing robot-assisted RP across three UK National Health Service tertiary referral centres will be recruited. Following RP, prostate specimens will undergo immediate immersion in Acridine Orange solution, scanning 'en face' with FCM using the Histolog® Scanner, and subsequent formalin fixation and paraffin embedding. Two independent, 'blinded' uro-pathologists will report both the FCM images and the histopathology slides. Recruitment commenced on 17 August 2023.

Indexed as

Margins of ExcisionProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleMicroscopy, ConfocalMicroscopy, FluorescenceProspective StudiesRobotic Surgical Proceduresconfocal laser microscopyfluorescence confocal microscopynovel technologyprostate cancerradical prostatectomysurgical margins

Identifiers

PMID39548928
PMCPMC11842882

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.