ArticleBJU international2026
Feasibility and workflow analysis of confocal microscopy in robot-assisted prostatectomy.
Article in BJU international, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy, workflow feasibility, and downstream compatibility of fluorescence confocal microscopy (Histolog® Scanner [HS]; SamanTree Medical SA, Lausanne, Switzerland) compared with frozen section (FS) for intraoperative margin evaluation (IME) during nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PATIENTS AND
methodsBetween May 2024 and April 2025, 68 patients undergoing RARP for non-metastatic prostate cancer were enrolled; two were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 66 evaluable cases. The IME was performed using both HS and FS. HS images were interpreted intraoperatively by experienced uropathologists, while surgical decisions were based on FS results. The residual tissue following HS was assessed for compatibility with downstream immunohistochemistry (IHC) and next-generation sequencing (NGS). Diagnostic performance was evaluated against whole-mount histology as the reference standard.
resultsThe HS identified carcinoma in four cases (three true positives, one false positive) and negative margins in 55 cases (53 true negatives, two false negatives); seven cases (10.6%) were classified as suspicious and resolved by FS. Considering only definite HS calls, sensitivity was 60.0%, specificity 98.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) 75.0%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 96.4%. When suspicious cases were treated as positive, sensitivity increased to 75.0%, specificity decreased to 91.4%, and PPV to 54.5%, while NPV remained 96.4%. HS processing did not impair IHC or NGS analyses. The overall R1 resection rate was 9.1%.
conclusionFluorescence confocal microscopy demonstrates high specificity and NPV for IME during RARP. A negative HS result can be interpreted with high confidence, potentially reducing the need for FS. Positive or suspicious HS findings should prompt targeted FS confirmation. Confocal laser scanning microscopy preserves tissue integrity for molecular testing and may be integrated into multimodal oncological workflows.
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.