ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2015
Detecting Prostate Cancer.
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Targeted Biopsy and Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Systematic Biopsy for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- U-Net benign prostatic hyperplasia-trained deep learning model for prostate ultrasound image segmentation in prostate cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates and complications between transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal and transrectal biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Review of different convolutional neural networks used in segmentation of prostate during fusion biopsy.Central European journal of urology · 2025Review
- The first-in-human preclinical evaluation of the new probe [123I]I-PSMA-7 for real-time intraoperative targeted biopsy and SPECT/CT imaging in prostate cancer.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Current Approach to Complications and Difficulties during Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2018Review
- Hematospermia-a Symptom With Many Possible Causes.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Review
- Simple Solution.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Article
- A review of optimal prostate biopsy: indications and techniques.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
- Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided targeted biopsy and ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy for prior negative prostate biopsy: A meta-analysis.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on bySimple Solution.2016
- Commented on byIn Reply.2016
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen prostate cancer is suspected, the prostate gland is biopsied with the aid of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). The sensitivity of prostatic biopsy is about 50%. The fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data with TRUS enables the targeted biopsy of suspicious areas. We studied whether this improves the detection of prostate cancer.
methods168 men with suspected prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI after a previous negative biopsy. Suspicious lesions were assessed with the classification of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and biopsied in targeted fashion with the aid of fused MRI and TRUS. At the same sitting, a systematic biopsy with at least 12 biopsy cores was performed.
resultsProstate cancer was detected in 71 patients (42.3%; 95% CI, 35.05-49.82). The detection rate of fusion-assisted targeted biopsy was 19% (95% CI, 13.83-25.65), compared to 37.5% (95% CI, 30.54-45.02) with systematic biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was more commonly revealed by targeted biopsy (84.4%; 95% CI, 68.25-93.14) than by systematic biopsy (65.1%; 95% CI, 52.75-75.67). In 7 patients with normal MRI findings, cancer was detected by systematic biopsy alone. Compared to systematic biopsy, targeted biopsy had a higher overall detection rate (16.5% vs. 6.3%), a higher rate of infiltration per core (30% vs. 10%), and a higher rate of detection of poorly differentiated carcinoma (18.5% vs. 3%). Patients with negative biopsies did not undergo any further observation.
conclusionMRI/TRUS fusion-assisted targeted biopsy improves the detection rate of prostate cancer after a previous negative biopsy. Targeted biopsy is more likely to reveal clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; nevertheless, systematic biopsy should still be performed, even if the MRI findings are negative.
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.