ArticleCureus2025
Usefulness of Pathological Autopsy for Patients With Malignant Tumors.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Characteristics, Prognosis and Reasons for Opting-Out of Treatment in Patients with Untreated Pancreatic Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Pathological autopsy is useful for elucidating pathological conditions and causes of death that are not known clinically. In recent years, pathological autopsies have decreased worldwide, and few studies have evaluated the discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and autopsy findings of malignant tumors. Goldman criteria classify discrepancies between clinical and pathological autopsy diagnoses, as follows: Class I (major discrepancies), missed major diagnosis; Class II (obvious discrepancies), missed major diagnosis; Class III, missed minor diagnosis; and Class IV, other missed minor diagnoses. Objective The Goldman criteria are used to assess discordance between antemortem clinical diagnosis and pathological autopsy, with major discordance rates reported at 16.6%-59%. The objective of this study was to investigate the usefulness of pathological autopsy in patients with malignant tumors. Methodology The Goldman criteria were applied to evaluate discordance between the antemortem clinical diagnosis and the diagnosis at pathological autopsy in 25 patients with malignant tumors who underwent pathological autopsy at the Department of Oncology, Fukuoka Wajiro Hospital, from December 2015 to May 2023, to assess the utility of pathological autopsy in clinical practice retrospectively. Results Eight patients (32%) were Class I, four (16%) were Class II in accordance with the Goldman criteria, and 11 (44%) were Class I/II, which was considered a major discordance. Class I discordance was difficult to diagnose by imaging and comprised histological discordance, sepsis, pulmonary infarction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, aplastic anemia, and bone marrow carcinomatosis. The most common conditions that were difficult to diagnose by imaging were metastases to the gastrointestinal tract, biliary system, and pancreas, which were more frequently revealed at pathological autopsy. Conclusions Pathological autopsy is a valuable tool for understanding the pathology of diseases as it reveals significant discrepancies between antemortem diagnoses and autopsy findings, particularly regarding disease extent, histological diagnosis, and causes of death.
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.