Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26200537›Full record

ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

Prostate cancer volume estimations based on transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in order to predict clinically significant prostate cancer.

Ersin Konyalioglu, Huseyin Tarhan, Ozgur Cakmak, Emel Ebru Pala, Ferruh Zorlu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Leveraging [Clinical and translational science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Clonal evaluation of prostate cancer molecular heterogeneity in biopsy samples by dual immunohistochemistry and dual RNA in situ hybridization.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Ersin KonyaliogluDepartment of Urology, Milas 75. Yil State Hospital, Mugla, Turkey.
Huseyin TarhanDepartment of Urology, Tepecik Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Ozgur CakmakDepartment of Urology, Tepecik Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Emel Ebru PalaDepartment of Pathology, Tepecik Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Ferruh ZorluDepartment of Urology, Tepecik Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTumor diameter is a reliable parameter to estimate tumor volume in solid organ cancers; its use in prostate cancer is controversial since it exhibits a more irregular pattern of growth. This study aimed to examine the association between the tumor volume estimations based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy results and the tumor volume measured on the pathological specimen. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 237 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) were included in this retrospective study. The differences and correlations between cancer volume estimations based on TRUS guided biopsy findings and cancer volume estimations based on post-prostatectomy pathology specimens were examined. In addition, diagnostic value of TRUS guided biopsy-based volume estimations in order to predict clinically significant cancer (>0.5 cc) were calculated.

resultsThe mean cancer volume estimated using TRUS biopsy results was lower (5.5±6.5 cc) than the mean cancer volume calculated using prostatectomy specimens (6.4±7.6 cc) (p<0.041).TRUS guided biopsy examination resulted in 5 false positive and 15 false negative cases. There was a significant but weak correlation between the two parameters (r=0.62, p<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of TRUS guided biopsy in predicting the presence of clinically significant cancer was 93.4% (95% CI, 89.1-96.1) and 50.0% (95% CI, 20.1-79.9), respectively.

conclusionsTRUS guided biopsy-derived estimations seem to have a limited value to predict pathologically established tumor volume. Further studies are warranted to identify additional methods that may more accurately predict actual pathological characteristics and prognosis of prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Tumor BurdenAdultAgedEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProstateProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityStatistics, NonparametricUltrasonography, Interventional

Identifiers

PMID26200537
PMCPMC4752136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.