Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28589399›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2017

Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies.

Jonathan H Wang, Tracy M Downs, E Jason Abel, Kyle A Richards, David F Jarrard

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Jonathan H WangDepartment of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Tracy M DownsDepartment of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
E Jason AbelDepartment of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Kyle A RichardsDepartment of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
David F JarrardDepartment of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. jarrard@urology.wisc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis manuscript reviews contemporary literature regarding prostate cancer active surveillance (AS) protocols as well as other tools that may guide the management of biopsy frequency and assess the possibility of progression in low-risk prostate cancer. RECENT

findingsThere is no consensus regarding the timing of surveillance biopsies; however, an immediate repeat biopsy within 12 months of diagnosis for patients considering AS confirms patients who have favorable risk disease yet also identifies patients who were undersampled initially. Studies regarding multiparametric MRI, nomograms, and biomarkers show promise in risk stratifying and counseling patients during AS. Further studies are needed to determine if these supplemental tests can decrease the frequency of surveillance biopsies. An immediate re-biopsy can help to reduce the risk of missing clinically significant disease. Other clinical tools, including mpMRI, exist that can be used as an adjunct to counsel patients and guide a personalized discussion regarding the frequency of surveillance biopsies.

Indexed as

Biopsy, Large-Core NeedleDisease ProgressionHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNomogramsProstatic NeoplasmsTime FactorsWatchful WaitingActive surveillanceMultiparametric MRIProstate biopsyProstate cancerRepeat biopsy

Identifiers

PMID28589399

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.