Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24908067›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2014

Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores?

Vincenzo Scattoni, Carmen Maccagnano, Umberto Capitanio, Andrea Gallina, Alberto Briganti, Francesco Montorsi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Inflammation and prostate cancer: friends or foe?Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2015
    Review
  14. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vincenzo ScattoniDepartment of Urology, Scientific Institute H San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy, scattoni.vincenzo@hsr.it.
Carmen Maccagnano
Umberto Capitanio
Andrea Gallina
Alberto Briganti
Francesco Montorsi
San Raffaele University of Rome · ITOspedale Sant'Anna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiopsyElasticity Imaging TechniquesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstateProstatic NeoplasmsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID24908067
OpenAlexW2032969573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.