Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27168038›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016

[Multiparametric MRI and MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in patients with prior negative prostate biopsy].

C Kesch, J P Radtke, F Distler, S Boxler, T Klein, C Hüttenbrink, K Hees, W Roth, M Roethke, H P Schlemmer and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

C KeschUrologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. Claudia.Kesch@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
J P RadtkeUrologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
F DistlerUrologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
S BoxlerUniversitätsklinik für Urologie, Universität Bern, Bern, Schweiz.
T KleinUrologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
C HüttenbrinkUrologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
K HeesInstitut für Medizinische Biometrie und Informatik, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
W RothPathologisches Institut der Universität Heidelberg, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
M RoethkeAbteilung für Radiologie, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
H P SchlemmerAbteilung für Radiologie, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
M HohenfellnerUrologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
B A HadaschikUrologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Heidelberg University · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEInstitut für Medizinische Biometrie, Informatik und Epidemiologie · DEUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiparametric MRI (mpMRI) plays an increasingly important role in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics and is recommended in men with previously negative TRUS biopsy. The optimal biopsy method after mpMRI is under discussion.

objectiveProspective, PIRADS- and START-conform analysis of the relevance of mpMRI and MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in patients with prior negative TRUS biopsy and comparison of the detection rates of fusion-targeted biopsies (tB) and systematic transperineal saturation biopsies (sB). MATERIALS AND

methodsBetween 10/2012 and 09/2015, 287 patients with prior negative TRUS biopsy underwent mpMRI and software-assisted, rigid MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy. In addition to and strictly separated from sB (median cores n = 24), tB (median cores per patient n = 4, per lesion n = 3) were performed in case of suspicious MRI lesions (PIRADS ≥ 2). Both biopsy methods were compared by using McNemar's test.

resultsOf the 287 patients, 148 (52 %) had positive biopsies. Of these, 108/287 (38 %) had significant PCa (Gleason Score [GS] = 3 + 3 and PSA ≥ 10 ng/ml or GS ≥ 3 + 4) and again 43/287 (15 %) had a GS ≥ 4 + 3 PCa. sB failed to diagnose 8/148 PCa (5.4 %) and 6/108 significant PCa (5.5 %), whereas tB failed to diagnose 48 (32.4 %) PCa (p < 0.0001) and 22 (20.4 %) significant PCa (p = 0.0046). Of the PCa missed by tB, 11  had a GS ≥ 3 + 4 and 5 of these a GS = 4 + 3. On a per patient basis, MRI failed to detect 5 significant PCa, whereby 17 of the significant PCa were missed by fusion-targeted cores alone.

conclusionsIn men with unsuspicious MRI (PIRADS < 3), there is a 11 % risk of significant PCa. In case of suspicious MRI lesions, the combination of both biopsy approaches offers maximum tumor detection.

Indexed as

AgedFalse Negative ReactionsHumansImage EnhancementImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyImage fusionMultiparametic magnetic resonance imagingProstate biopsyProtstate cancerRe-biopsy

Identifiers

PMID27168038
OpenAlexW2362416355

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.