ArticleDer Radiologe2011
[New ultrasound technologies for the diagnostics of prostate cancer].
Article in Der Radiologe, 2011. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of machine learning-based transrectal multimodal ultrasound combined with PSA-related indicators in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
clinical/methodological issueProstate cancer is the most common cancer in men. The diagnosis is based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy. These techniques have considerable limitations, which result in unnecessary biopsies. Furthermore the biopsies are associated with morbidity and costs. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL
methodsStandard gray-scale ultrasound has a low sensitivity and specificity for prostate cancer detection. METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS: New ultrasound technologies, including color- and power Doppler ultrasound, contrast enhanced US and real-time sonoelastography have shown to improve prostate cancer diagnosis. PERFORMANCE: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound has shown a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 95%), a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88.8% for prostate cancer detection. Real-time sonoelastography has shown a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81% and NPV of 91% for prostate cancer diagnosis. ACHIEVEMENTS: Most studies show that these new ultrasound modalities demonstrate a 1.5 to 2.5 times higher detection of prostate cancer per biopsy specimen compared with systematic biopsy. Multicenter studies results are at present lacking but are, however ongoing. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: In patients with suspected prostate cancer (elevated PSA, suspicious DRE) these new ultrasound techniques should be used. These techniques can detect prostate cancer and allow a targeted biopsy approach.
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.