ArticleReviews in urology2007
Is repeat biopsy for isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia necessary?
Article in Reviews in urology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP): Is a repeat biopsy necessary ASAP? A multi-institutional review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2016Review
- Predicting prostate cancer at rebiopsies in patients with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a study on 546 patients.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous studies have cited the positive predictive value of isolated highgrade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) to the detection of cancer. Epidemiological, morphological, and molecular data support the potential for malignant transformation of HGPIN, yet no current method can discriminate which lesions will progress to clinically significant prostate cancer versus more latent lesions. Recent analyses of multiple retrospective studies have found similar rates of cancer detection following either diagnosis of isolated HGPIN or an initial negative biopsy. This may reflect increased use of extended biopsy techniques involving 10 or more cores rather than the true ability of HGPIN to undergo malignant transformation. This article discusses controversies surrounding management of an isolated diagnosis of HGPIN and whether repeat biopsy of HGPIN should be mandatory or selective in the context of other predictive values such as rising prostate-specific antigen or lesion on digital rectal examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17934569PMC2002502What 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.