Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28728993›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2018

Value of Tracking Biopsy in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

Edward Chang, Tonye A Jones, Shyam Natarajan, Devi Sharma, Demetrios Simopoulos, Daniel J Margolis, Jiaoti Huang, Frederick J Dorey, Leonard S Marks

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Edward ChangDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Tonye A JonesDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Shyam NatarajanDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Devi SharmaDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Demetrios SimopoulosDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Daniel J MargolisDepartment of Radiology, Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Jiaoti HuangDepartment of Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Frederick J DoreyDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Leonard S MarksDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: LMarks@mednet.ucla.edu.

Funding

Biopsy Tracking and MRI Fusion to Enhance Imaging of Cancer Within the ProstateR01CA158627 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI MARKS, LEONARD STEPHEN · 2011 to 2013
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA158627
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe compared the upgrading rate obtained by resampling precise spots of prostate cancer (tracking biopsy) vs conventional systematic resampling during followup of men on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom 2009 to 2017 in 352 men prostate cancer was Gleason 3 + 3 in 268 and Gleason 3 + 4 in 84 at initial magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy. These men subsequently underwent a second fusion biopsy. At the first biopsy session all men underwent 12-core systematic biopsies and, when magnetic resonance imaging visible lesions were present, targeted biopsies. All cancerous sites were recorded electronically. During active surveillance at a second fusion biopsy session 6 to 18 months later tracking and systematic nontracking samples were obtained. The primary outcome measure was an increase in Gleason score (upgrading) at followup sampling, which was stratified by biopsy method.

resultsOverall 91 of the 352 men (25.9%) experienced upgrading at the second biopsy during a median 11-month interval. The upgrade rate in the Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 groups was 26.9% and 22.6%, respectively. The mean number of cores taken at second biopsy was 12.2 ± 3.3 in men with upgrading and 12.4 ± 4.1 in those who remained stable (p not significant). Men with grade 0 to 4 magnetic resonance imaging targets were all upgraded at approximately the same rate of 20% to 30% (p not significant). However, 58.8% of the men with grade 5 magnetic resonance imaging targets were upgraded. Of the 91 upgrades 48 (53%) were detected only by tracking.

conclusionsThe tracking function of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy warrants further study. When specific sites are resampled in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer, upgrading is detected more often than by nontracking biopsy.

Indexed as

Multimodal ImagingPopulation SurveillanceAgedHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingProstatic NeoplasmsUltrasonographybiopsymagnetic resonance imagingneoplasm gradingprostatic neoplasmsultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID28728993
PMCPMC5760302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.