Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39703742›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2025

Prospective Analysis of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for Assessment of the Resection Bed for Bladder Tumor.

Ben-Max de Ruiter, Jan E Freund, C Dilara Savci-Heijink, Jons W van Hattum, Marinka J Remmelink, Theo M de Reijke, Joyce Baard, Guido M Kamphuis, D Martijn de Bruin, Jorg R Oddens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. 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

10 authors.

Ben-Max de RuiterDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan E FreundDepartment of Pathology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
C Dilara Savci-HeijinkCancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jons W van HattumDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marinka J RemmelinkDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Theo M de ReijkeDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joyce BaardDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Guido M KamphuisDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
D Martijn de BruinDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jorg R OddensDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bladder cancerConfocal laser endomicroscopyCystoscopyDiagnostics

Identifiers

PMID39703742
PMCPMC11656091

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.