ReviewPathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
Prostate carcinoma in core biopsy : Diagnostic criteria, mimics/pitfalls, subtypes.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advances in imaging diagnostics, the histological confirmation of suspected carcinoma through prostate core needle biopsy remains essential for treatment planning. Diagnosis is based on established morphological criteria such as architectural disturbances, cellular atypia, and loss of the basal cell layer. In addition to the most common acinar prostate carcinoma, various subtypes and rare histological patterns exist, which must be differentiated from benign mimickers. Immunohistochemical methods support diagnostic accuracy but should be carefully interpreted in the context of morphology. Tumor extent in core biopsy specimens should preferably be reported in millimeters. Diagnostic uncertainties can be coded as atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) or atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) to facilitate appropriate clinical interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40762717What 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.