Trial reportWorld journal of urology2016
Endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging associated with systematic cognitive biopsies does not increase prostate cancer detection rate: a randomized prospective trial.
Trial report 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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-stratified Clinical Pathways and Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy Pathway for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.European urology oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Does the type of the previous biopsy affect the fusion prostate biopsy results?Prostate international · 2024Article
- Comparing confirmatory biopsy outcomes between MRI-targeted biopsy and standard systematic biopsy among men being enrolled in prostate cancer active surveillance.BJU international · 2021Article
- Moving away from systematic biopsies: image-guided prostate biopsy (in-bore biopsy, cognitive fusion biopsy, MRUS fusion biopsy) -literature review.World journal of urology · 2021Review
- Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Predicting Pathologic Outcomes in Prostate Cancer.The world journal of men's health · 2021Review
- Positive pre-biopsy MRI: are systematic biopsies still useful in addition to targeted biopsies?World journal of urology · 2019Review
- Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of Cancer · 2018Article
- Targeted 11C-choline PET-CT/TRUS software fusion-guided prostate biopsy in men with persistently elevated PSA and negative mpMRI after previous negative biopsy.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2017Article
- Optimizing biopsy strategy for prostate cancer: Bayesian framework of network meta-analysis and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model for diagnostic accuracy.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate prostate cancer (PC) detection rate, employing endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) driving subsequent cognitive systematic prostatic biopsy (CSPB) versus a homogenous group of patients who did not undergo endorectal MRI. MATERIALS AND
methodsA series of patients with a first negative biopsy were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A: patients underwent MRI and subsequent CSPB; Group B: patients that did not undergo MRI. Each patient underwent a 13-core sampling. Patients from Group A had four cores more for each MRI suspected lesion. The cancer detection rate was calculated for each group with regard to possible matches or mismatches between MRI evidence and pathological reports.
resultsTwo hundred consecutive patients were investigated. Fifty out of 200 (25 %) patients had a diagnosis of PC, 24 in Group A and 26 in Group B. In Group A, 67 patients (67 %) were positive for suspected lesions at the MRI. The mismatch between MRI findings and the CSPB outcome was 61 % with an MRI-driven detection rate of 15 %. Group B detection rate was 26 % with no significant differences versus Group A (P = NS). Patient discomfort was higher in Group A (82 %). The accuracy of CSPB was 41 % with a positive predictive value of 22.3 %. This rate is lower in high-grade cancers (11.9 %). The cost-effectiveness was higher in Group A.
conclusionsProstate cancer detection rate does not improve by CSPB. The accuracy of CSPB was lower in high-grade PC, and a higher cost was found with CSPB.
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.