Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26215749›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2016

True targeting-derived prostate biopsy: HistoScanning™ remained inadequate despite advanced technical efforts.

Jonas Schiffmann, Gisa Mehring, Pierre Tennstedt, Lukas Manka, Katharina Boehm, Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Peter Hammerer, Markus Graefen, Georg Salomon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. HistoScanningCurrent urology reports · 2017
    Review
  4. 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

10 authors.

Jonas SchiffmannDepartment of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Salzdahlumerstrasse 90, 38126, Brunswick, Germany. schiffmann.jonas@gmx.de.
Gisa MehringDepartment of Urology, Medical University Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Pierre TennstedtMartini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Lukas MankaDepartment of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Salzdahlumerstrasse 90, 38126, Brunswick, Germany.
Katharina BoehmMartini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Sami-Ramzi Leyh-BannurahDepartment of Urology, Medical University Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada.
Peter HammererDepartment of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Salzdahlumerstrasse 90, 38126, Brunswick, Germany.
Markus GraefenMartini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Georg SalomonMartini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo verify the reliability of HistoScanning™-based, true targeting (TT)-derived prostate biopsy.

methodsWe relied on 40 patients suspicious for prostate cancer who underwent standard and TT-derived prostate biopsy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and the area under the curve (AUC) were assessed for the prediction of biopsy results per octant by HistoScanning™, using different HistoScanning™ signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml).

resultsOverall, 319 octants were analyzed. Of those, 64 (20.1 %) harbored prostate cancer. According to different HistoScanning™ signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml), the AUCs for predicting biopsy results were: 0.51, 0.51 and 0.53, respectively. Similarly, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values were: 20.7, 78.2, 17.4 and 81.6 %; 20.7, 82.0, 20.3 and 82.3 %; and 12.1, 94.6, 33.3 and 82.9 %, respectively.

conclusionsPrediction of biopsy results based on HistoScanning™ signals and TT-derived biopsies was unreliable. Moreover, the AUC of TT-derived biopsies was low and did not improve when additional signal volume cutoffs were applied (>0.2 and >0.5 ml). We cannot recommend a variation of well-established biopsy standards or reduction in biopsy cores based on HistoScanning™ signals.

Indexed as

AgedBiopsyBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProstateProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsHistoScanning™ImagingProstate biopsyProstate cancerTrue targetingUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID26215749

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.