Trial reportThe Journal of urology2016
Reproducibility of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy: Multi-Institutional External Validation by a Propensity Score Matched Cohort.
Trial report in The Journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative Briganti Nomogram Score and Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression After Robotic Surgery Beyond EAU Risk Categories.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Diminished Short-Term Efficacy of Reduced-Dose Induction BCG in the Treatment of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.Cancers · 2023Article
- Application of Multiple Ultrasonic Techniques in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Article
- Multiparametric MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy decreases detection of indolent cancer in African-American men.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2017Article
- The Contemporary Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.Current urology reports · 2017Review
- Missing the Mark: Prostate Cancer Upgrading by Systematic Biopsy over Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.The Journal of urology · 2017Article
- Current beliefs and practice patterns among urologists regarding prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-targeted biopsy.Urologic oncology · 2017Article
- Risk stratification of prostate cancer: integrating multiparametric MRI, nomograms and biomarkers.Future oncology (London, England) · 2016Review
- Midline lesions of the prostate: role of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy and implications in Gleason risk stratification.International urology and nephrology · 2016Article
- PTEN loss and chromosome 8 alterations in Gleason grade 3 prostate cancer cores predicts the presence of un-sampled grade 4 tumor: implications for active surveillance.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2016Article
- A urologist's perspective on prostate cancer imaging: past, present, and future.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAs the adoption of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy expands, the reproducibility of outcomes at expert centers becomes essential. We sought to validate the comprehensive NCI (National Cancer Institute) experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy in an external, independent, matched cohort of patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe compared 620 patients enrolled in a prospective trial comparing systematic biopsy to fusion guided biopsy at NCI to 310 who underwent a similar procedure at Long Island Jewish Medical Center. The propensity score, defined as the probability of being treated outside NCI, was calculated using the estimated logistic regression model. Patients from the hospital were matched 1:1 for age, prostate specific antigen, magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score and prior negative biopsies. Clinically significant disease was defined as Gleason 3 + 4 or greater.
resultsBefore matching we found differences between the cohorts in age, magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score (each p <0.001), the number of patients with prior negative biopsies (p = 0.01), and the overall cancer detection rate and the cancer detection rate by fusion guided biopsy (each p <0.001). No difference was found in the rates of upgrading by fusion guided biopsy (p = 0.28) or upgrading to clinically significant disease (p = 0.95). A statistically significant difference remained in the overall cancer detection rate and the rate by fusion guided biopsy after matching. On subgroup analysis we found a difference in the overall cancer detection rate and the rate by fusion guided biopsy (p <0.001 and 0.003) in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy but no difference in the 2 rates (p = 0.39 and 0.51, respectively) in biopsy naïve patients.
conclusionsImproved detection of clinically significant cancer by magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy is reproducible by an experienced multidisciplinary team consisting of dedicated radiologists and urologists.
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.