ReviewNature reviews. Urology2011
Robotic prostate biopsy and its relevance to focal therapy of prostate cancer.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global research trends and hotspots in robotic-assisted prostate biopsy: a bibliometric analysis from 2008 to 2026.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-Assisted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2023Review
- Beyond transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: available techniques and approaches.World journal of urology · 2019Review
- Recent advances in imaging-guided interventions for prostate cancers.Cancer letters · 2014Review
- Fast and robust extraction of surrogate respiratory signal from intra-operative liver ultrasound images.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2013Article
- Image-guided robotic interventions for prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2013Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Focal therapy is an individualized treatment option for prostate cancer, which destroys localized cancerous tissue but not normal tissue, thus avoiding the morbidities associated with whole-gland therapy. Accurate cancer localization and precise ablation are integral to the success of focal therapy, which remains unproven owing to suboptimal patient selection. Currently, there are no clinical or biopsy features that can identify unifocal prostate cancer and no imaging modality that can accurately diagnose or localize prostate cancer. MRI diagnosis has the best accuracy but high cost and limited access hinder its widespread adoption. New management options, including focal therapy and active surveillance, require prostate biopsy to detect, localize and characterize the cancer. Transrectal prostate biopsy has a high false-negative detection rate, which might be related to an inability to biopsy the anterior and apical part of the prostate or interoperator variation. Transrectal biopsy is also associated with sepsis and bleeding. Robotic transperineal prostate biopsy can overcome the limitations of transrectal procedures. Robotic biopsy is automated with high accuracy, has improved access to the apex and anterior part of the prostate and has low risk of sepsis. Furthermore, it involves only two skin punctures, compared with template-based transperineal prostate biopsy, which can result in multiple wounds. Robotic prostate biopsy fulfills the fundamental needs of focal therapy and might be the platform for future treatment delivery for prostate cancer.
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.