Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23312572›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology2014

Prostate cancer risk inflation as a consequence of image-targeted biopsy of the prostate: a computer simulation study.

Nicola L Robertson, Yipeng Hu, Hashim U Ahmed, Alex Freeman, Dean Barratt, Mark Emberton

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03960112 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Multicentric Evaluation of the True Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric MRI for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Using Cystoprostatectomy Specimen as Reference

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitut Paoli-CalmettesRan2020 to 2022Enrolled150ConditionsProstate CancerArmsmpMRI
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nicola L RobertsonDepartment of Radiology, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. Electronic address: nicola.robertson7@nhs.net.
Yipeng HuUCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, London, UK.
Hashim U AhmedDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospital Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Alex FreemanDepartment of Histopathology, University College London Hospital Trust, London, UK.
Dean BarrattUCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, London, UK.
Mark EmbertonDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospital Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council G0701302Medical Research Council G1002509
6 · The paper itself

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

Computer SimulationAdultAgedHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentBiopsyProstateRiskSimulation

Identifiers

PMID23312572
PMCPMC3925797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.