ArticleEuropean urology2014
Prostate cancer risk inflation as a consequence of image-targeted biopsy of the prostate: a computer simulation study.
Article in European urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03960112 (Multicentric Evaluation of the True Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric MRI for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Using Cystoprostatectomy Specimen as Reference), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Multicentric Evaluation of the True Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric MRI for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Using Cystoprostatectomy Specimen as Reference
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies.World journal of urology · 2014Pooled it
- The concordance between the volume hotspot and the grade hotspot: a 3-D reconstructive model using the pathology outputs from the PROMIS trial.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2016Trial
- Clinical validation of a Novel Robotic Device for MR-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Initial Patient Experience.Journal of medical robotics research · 2026Article
- Machine learning model for fast prediction and uncertainty quantification of needle deflection during prostate biopsy.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Variation in Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Performance: Data from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.European urology oncology · 2026Article
- Data-driven adaptive needle insertion assist for transperineal prostate interventions.Physics in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- MRI-compatible electromagnetic servomotor for image-guided medical robotics.Communications engineering · 2022Article
- Prostate cancer detection by targeted prostate biopsy using the 3D Navigo system: a prospective study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Article
- The Impact of Placement Errors on the Tumor Coverage in MRI-Guided Focal Cryoablation of Prostate Cancer.Academic radiology · 2021Article
- Combined Systematic and MRI-US Fusion Prostate Biopsy Has the Highest Grading Accuracy When Compared to Final Pathology.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- In vivo evaluation of angulated needle-guide template for MRI-guided transperineal prostate biopsy.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort.European radiology · 2021Article
- Gleason Grade Group Concordance between Preoperative Targeted Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Histopathologic Analysis: A Comparison Between In-Bore MRI-guided and MRI-Transrectal US Fusion Prostate Biopsies.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2021Article
- Comparing confirmatory biopsy outcomes between MRI-targeted biopsy and standard systematic biopsy among men being enrolled in prostate cancer active surveillance.BJU international · 2021Article
- Re: Quantitation of hypoechoic lesions for the prediction and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: a prospective study.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- Confirmatory multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at recruitment confers prolonged stay in active surveillance and decreases the rate of upgrading at follow-up.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2020Article
- Controversies in MR targeted biopsy: alone or combined, cognitive versus software-based fusion, transrectal versus transperineal approach?World journal of urology · 2019Review
- Targeted Prostate Biopsy Gleason Score Heterogeneity and Implications for Risk Stratification.American journal of clinical oncology · 2018Article
- MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions?Translational andrology and urology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProstate biopsy parameters are commonly used to attribute cancer risk. A targeted approach to lesions found on imaging may have an impact on the risk attribution given to a man.
objectiveTo evaluate whether, based on computer simulation, targeting of lesions during biopsy results in reclassification of cancer risk when compared with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsA total of 107 reconstructed three-dimensional models of whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens were used for computer simulations. Systematic 12-core TRUS biopsy was compared with transperineal targeted biopsies using between one and five cores. All biopsy strategies incorporated operator and needle deflection error. A target was defined as any lesion ≥ 0.2 ml. A false-positive magnetic resonance imaging identification rate of 34% was applied. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Sensitivity was calculated for the detection of all cancer and clinically significant disease. Cases were designated as high risk based on achieving ≥ 6 mm cancer length and/or ≥ 50% positive cores. Statistical significance (p values) was calculated using both a paired Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the t test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: When applying a widely used biopsy criteria to designate risk, 12-core TRUS biopsy classified only 24% (20 of 85) of clinically significant cases as high risk, compared with 74% (63 of 85) of cases using 4 targeted cores. The targeted strategy reported a significantly higher proportion of positive cores (44% vs 11%; p<0.0001) and a significantly greater mean maximum cancer core length (7.8mm vs 4.3mm; p<0.0001) when compared with 12-core TRUS biopsy. Computer simulations may not reflect the sources of errors encountered in clinical practice. To mitigate this we incorporated all known major sources of error to maximise clinical relevance.
conclusionsImage-targeted biopsy results in an increase in risk attribution if traditional criteria, based on cancer core length and the proportion of positive cores, are applied. Targeted biopsy strategies will require new risk stratification models that account for the increased likelihood of sampling the tumour.
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.