ArticleBMC urology2015
Computer-aided transrectal ultrasound: does prostate HistoScanning™ improve detection performance of prostate cancer in repeat biopsies?
Article in BMC urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of Histoscanning™ in prostate cancer diagnostics.World journal of urology · 2021Pooled it
- Application of ultrasound imaging biomarkers (HistoScanning™) improves staging reliability of prostate biopsies.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- HistoScanningCurrent urology reports · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn imaging tool providing reliable prostate cancer (PCa) detection and localization is necessary to improve common diagnostic pathway with ultrasound targeted biopsies. To determine the performance of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) augmented by prostate HistoScanning(TM) analysis (PHS) we investigated the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) foci in repeat prostate biopsies (Bx).
methods97 men with a mean age of 66.2 (44-82) years underwent PHS augmented TRUS analysis prior to a repeat Bx. Three PHS positive foci were defined in accordance with 6 bilateral prostatic sectors. Targeted Bx (tBx) limited to PHS positive foci and a systematic 14-core backup Bx (sBx) were taken. Results were correlated to biopsy outcome. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated.
resultsPCa was found in 31 of 97 (32%) patients. Detection rate in tBx was significantly higher (p < .001). Detection rate in tBx and sBx did not differ on patient level (p ≥ 0.7). PHS sensitivity, specificity, predictive accuracy, PPV and NPV were 45%, 83%, 80%, 19% and 95%, respectively.
conclusionsPHS augmented TRUS identifies abnormal prostatic tissue. Although sensitivity and PPV for PCa are low, PHS information facilitates Bx targeting to vulnerable foci and results in a higher cancer detection rate. PHS targeted Bx should be considered in patients at persistent risk of PCa.
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.