Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27830373›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2017

Precision of MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis: an ex vivo comparison of alternative biopsy techniques on prostate phantoms.

N Westhoff, F P Siegel, D Hausmann, M Polednik, J von Hardenberg, M S Michel, M Ritter

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Initial phantom studies for an office-based low-field MR system for prostate biopsy.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Radiological semantics discriminate clinically significant grade prostate cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2019
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

N WesthoffDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. niklas.westhoff@medma.uni-heidelberg.de.
F P SiegelDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
D HausmannDepartment of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
M PolednikDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
J von HardenbergDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
M S MichelDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
M RitterDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeComparing the accuracy of MRI/ultrasound-guided target-biopsy by transrectal biopsy (TRB) with elastic versus rigid image fusion versus transperineal biopsy (TPB) with rigid image fusion in a standardized setting.

methodsTarget-biopsy of six differently sized and located lesions was performed on customized CIRS 070L prostate phantoms. Lesions were only MRI-visible. After prior MRI for lesion location, one targeted biopsy per lesion was obtained by TRB with elastic image fusion with Artemis™ (Eigen, USA), TRB with rigid image fusion with real-time virtual sonography (Hitachi, Japan) and TPB with rigid image fusion with a brachytherapy approach (Elekta, Sweden), each on a phantom of 50, 100 and 150 ml prostate volume. The needle trajectories were marked by contrast agent and detected in a postinterventional MRI.

resultsOverall target detection rate was 79.6% with a slight superiority for the TPB (83.3 vs. 77.8 vs. 77.8%). TRB with elastic image fusion showed the highest overall precision [median distance to lesion center 2.37 mm (0.14-4.18 mm)], independent of prostate volume. Anterior lesions were significantly more precisely hit than transitional and basal lesions (p = 0.034; p = 0.015) with comparable accuracy for TRB with elastic image fusion and TPB. In general, TRB with rigid image fusion was inferior [median 3.15 mm (0.37-10.62 mm)], particularly in small lesions.

conclusionAll biopsy techniques allow detection of clinically significant tumors with a median error of 2-3 mm. Elastic image fusion appears to be the most precise technique, independent of prostate volume, target size or location.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyPhantoms, ImagingProstateProstatic NeoplasmsComparative Effectiveness ResearchDimensional Measurement AccuracyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleSoftware DesignUltrasonography, InterventionalAccuracyComparisonMRI/ultrasound image fusionProstate cancerSoftware-basedTarget-biopsy

Identifiers

PMID27830373

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.