Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40736716›Full record

ReviewPathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025

Grossing and reporting of the radical prostatectomy specimen.

Marit Bernhardt, Glen Kristiansen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Marit BernhardtInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Glen KristiansenInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany. glen.kristiansen@ukbonn.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The grossing and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens are key issues in pathology. Consensus conferences have defined clear guidelines for UICC/TNM-relevant parameters, while the extent of embedding remains controversial. Various embedding protocols, such as the Bonn protocol, enable efficient processing with consistent diagnostic significance. The increasing use of standardized diagnostic schemes, such as those developed by the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), can ensure (international) comparability of diagnoses. This paper explains the criteria for embedding and reporting with a particular focus on prognostically relevant findings such as the differentiation between pT2 and pT3 tumors.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsSpecimen HandlingHumansMaleNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProstateMacroscopyProstate cancerReportingTissue embeddingTumor staging

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.