ArticleEuropean urology open science2025
Prospective Analysis of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for Assessment of the Resection Bed for Bladder Tumor.
Article in European urology open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary feasibility and safety of domestic probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis of bladder lesions: a prospective single-arm cohort study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Rapid evaluation of muscularis propria in transurethral resection of bladder tumour specimens using non-linear microscopy (NLM).Journal of clinical pathology · 2026Article
- Re: Ben-Max de Ruiter, Jan E. Freund, C. Dilara Savci-Heijink, et al. Prospective Analysis of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for Assessment of the Resection Bed for Bladder Tumor. Eur Urol Open Sci 2025;71:57-62.European urology open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Urothelial bladder cancer (UCB) care requires frequent follow-up cystoscopy and surgery. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), a probe-based optical technique for real-time microscopic evaluation, has shown promising accuracy for grading of UCB. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of CLE-based assessment of the surgical radicality of the bladder resection bed (RB). Methods: We prospectively included 40 participants scheduled for transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT) in two academic hospitals. Exclusion criteria were flat lesions, fluorescein allergy, and pregnancy. We performed CLE of the RB during TURBT. Histopathology of an RB biopsy was the reference test. Results at first cystoscopy 3 mo after TURBT are reported. A panel of two blinded observers evaluated the CLE images. The diagnostic accuracy of CLE for detection of detrusor muscle (DM) and residual tumor (rT) was calculated using 2 × 2 tables. Key findings and limitations: Histopathology for 22 CLE-matched RB biopsies revealed rT in four cases (18%) and DM in 13 (59%). The quality of CLE imaging was low in four (18%), moderate in 16 (73%), and good in two (9%) cases. CLE was able to correctly predict rT in two of the four cases (50%) identified on histopathology. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07-0.93), 0.83 (95% CI 0.59-0.96), 0.4 (95% CI 0.05-0.85), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.64-0.99) for CLE prediction of rT, and 0.69 (95% CI 0.39-0.91), 0.33 (95% CI 0.07-0.7), 0.6 (95% CI 0.32-0.84), and 0.43 (95% CI 0.1-0.82) for prediction of DM, respectively. Five patients (23%) had rT at 3-mo follow-up; CLE had predicted rT in three, and histopathology had revealed rT in two cases at TURBT. Conclusions and clinical implications: CLE does not appear to be a reliable tool for detecting rT or DM in the RB after TURBT. Patient summary: We investigated a special imaging technique called confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) for checking the bladder after surgery for bladder cancer in a group of 40 patients. CLE results were compared to traditional biopsy results and the patients were checked after 3 months. CLE was not very reliable in detecting any remaining cancer (only 50% accurate) or important muscle tissue in the surgical area, and the quality of the images varied. While CLE shows some promise, it is not currently a dependable method for evaluating the bladder after bladder cancer surgery.
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.