Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25897467›Full record

ArticleJournal of endourology2015

Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasonography Fusion Prostate Biopsy Significantly Outperforms Systematic 12-Core Biopsy for Prediction of Total Magnetic Resonance Imaging Tumor Volume in Active Surveillance Patients.

Chinonyerem Okoro, Arvin K George, M Minhaj Siddiqui, Soroush Rais-Bahrami, Annerleim Walton-Diaz, Nabeel A Shakir, Jason T Rothwax, Dima Raskolnikov, Lambros Stamatakis, Daniel Su and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of endourology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Editorial Comment.The Journal of urology · 2016
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors.

Chinonyerem Okoro1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Arvin K George1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
M Minhaj Siddiqui1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Soroush Rais-Bahrami1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Annerleim Walton-Diaz1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Nabeel A Shakir1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Jason T Rothwax1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Dima Raskolnikov1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Lambros Stamatakis1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Daniel Su1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Baris Turkbey2 Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Peter L Choyke2 Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Maria J Merino3 Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Howard L Parnes4 Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Bradford J Wood1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Peter A Pinto1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

Center for Interventional OncologyZIDBC011242 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2009 to 2025
$18.7M
miRNA profiling of prostate cancer in young and older male patientsZIABC011406 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI MERINO, MARIA · 2011 to 2023
$1.8M
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteIntramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo correlate the highest percentage core involvement (HPCI) and corresponding tumor length (CTL) on systematic 12-core biopsy (SBx) and targeted magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography (MRI/TRUS) fusion biopsy (TBx), with total MRI prostate cancer (PCa) tumor volume (TV). PATIENTS AND

methodsFifty patients meeting criteria for active surveillance (AS) based on outside SBx, who underwent 3.0T multiparametric prostate MRI (MP-MRI), followed by SBx and TBx during the same session at our institution were examined. PCa TVs were calculated using MP-MRI and then correlated using bivariate analysis with the HPCI and CTL for SBx and TBx.

resultsFor TBx, HPCI and CTL showed a positive correlation (R(2)=0.31, P<0.0001 and R(2)=0.37, P<0.0001, respectively) with total MRI PCa TV, whereas for SBx, these parameters showed a poor correlation (R(2)=0.00006, P=0.96 and R(2)=0.0004, P=0.89, respectively). For detection of patients with clinically significant MRI derived tumor burden greater than 500 mm(3), SBx was 25% sensitive, 90.9% specific (falsely elevated because of missed tumors and extremely low sensitivity), and 54% accurate in comparison with TBx, which was 53.6% sensitive, 86.4% specific, and 68% accurate.

conclusionsHPCI and CTL on TBx positively correlates with total MRI PCa TV, whereas there was no correlation seen with SBx. TBx is superior to SBx for detecting tumor burden greater than 500 mm(3). When using biopsy positive MRI derived TVs, TBx better reflects overall disease burden, improving risk stratification among candidates for active surveillance.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTumor BurdenUltrasonographyProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID25897467
PMCPMC4593891

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.