ReviewWorld journal of urology2014
Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores?
Review in World journal of urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- Comparison between Ultrasound Guided Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Trial.Scientific reports · 2015Trial
- PI-RADS in Predicting csPCa: A Comparison Between Academic and Nonacademic Centers.The Prostate · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Prognostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy in defining prostate cancer anterior lesions.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2020Review
- Extent and predictors of grade upgrading and downgrading in an Australian cohort according to the new prostate cancer grade groupings.Asian journal of urology · 2019Article
- Retrospective Study of the Significant Predictive Role of Inflammatory Degree in Initial and Repeat Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Detecting Prostate Cancer.Cancer research and treatment · 2019Article
- Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer?World journal of urology · 2019Review
- What is an acceptable false negative rate in the detection of prostate cancer?Translational andrology and urology · 2018Article
- Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy: are two biopsy cores per MRI-lesion required?European radiology · 2016Article
- Inflammation and prostate cancer: friends or foe?Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2015Review
- Emerging Technologies for the Detection of Cancer Micrometastasis.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe optimal random prostate biopsy scheme (PBx) in the initial and repeated setting is still an issue of controversy. We performed an analysis of the recent literature about the prostate biopsy techniques.
methodsWe performed a clinical and critical literature review by searching MEDLINE database from January 2005 up to January 2014. Electronic searches were limited to the English language, and the keywords prostate cancer, prostate biopsy, transrectal ultrasound, transperineal prostate biopsy were used.
resultsProstate biopsy strategy in initial setting. According to the literature and the major international guidelines, the recommended approach in initial setting is still the extended scheme (EPBx) (12 cores). However, there is now a growing evidence in the literature that (a) saturation PBx (>20 cores) (SPBx) might be indicated in patients with PSA <10 ng/ml or low PSA density or large prostate and (b) an individualized approach with more than 12 cores according to the clinical characteristics of the patients may optimize cancer detection in the single patient. Moreover, in the era of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI), EPBx or SPBX may be substituted by mpMRI-targeted biopsies that have demonstrated superiority over systematic random biopsies for the detection of clinically significant disease and representation of disease burden, while deploying fewer cores. Prostate biopsy strategy in repeat setting. How and how many cores should be taken in the different scenarios in the repeated setting is still unclear. SPBx clearly improves cancer detection if clinical suspicion persists after previous biopsy with negative findings and is able to provide an accurate prediction of prostate tumour volume and grade. Nevertheless, international guidelines do not strongly recommended SPBx in all situations of repeated setting. In the active surveillance and in focal therapy protocols, the optimal schemes have to be defined.
conclusionsThe course of PBx has changed significantly from sextant biopsies to systematic and from extended to SPBx schemes. The issue about the number and location of the cores is still a matter of debate both in initial and in repeat setting. At present, EPBx is sufficient in most of the cases to provide adequate diagnosis and prostate cancer characterization in the initial setting, while SPBx seems to be necessary in repeat setting. The PBx schemes are evolving also because the scenario in which a PBx is necessary is changing. Random prostate PBx do not represent the future, while imaging target biopsy are becoming more popular.
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.