Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29368230›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2018

Multiparametric ultrasound-targeted biopsy compares favorably to multiparametric MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy on initial biopsy of men at risk for prostate cancer.

Pat F Fulgham

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

1 author.

Pat F FulghamTexas Health Presbyterian Dallas, 8230 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 700, Dallas, TX, 75231, USA. pfulgham@airmail.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3190-5000

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose this study is to evaluate the efficacy of multiparametric ultrasound-targeted biopsies in patients undergoing initial biopsy of the prostate for the suspicion of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 167 patients who are biopsy naïve underwent multiparametric ultrasound-targeted biopsy of the prostate. All patients had a transrectal ultrasound which included gray-scale evaluation and color Doppler evaluation. 12-core biopsies were performed on all patients, based on sextant anatomy; however, all cores were directed toward visually abnormal areas of the prostate as identified by multiparametric ultrasound, when such areas were present.

resultsOf 167 patients undergoing biopsy, a total of 111 (66.5%) were positive for cancer. Of these, 78 (70.3%) had a Gleason grade ≥ 7 and 33 (29.7%) had a Gleason grade ≤ 6. Of those undergoing radical prostatectomy 29 of 38 (76.3%) had biopsy Gleason grade ≥ 7, while nine of 38 (23.7%) had a Gleason grade ≤ 6. Only four of 38 (10.5%) patients who had final pathologic staging underwent surgical therapy for disease of low-malignant potential (Gleason ≤ 6).

conclusionOn initial biopsy for prostate cancer, multiparametric ultrasound-targeted biopsy compares favorably to the published performance of multiparametric MRI-TRUS fusion-targeted biopsy in terms of positive biopsy rate and the detection of disease of low-malignant potential.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance Imaging, InterventionalMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentUltrasonography, InterventionalUnited StatesMultiparametric MRI of the prostateMultiparametric ultrasoundProstate biopsyProstate cancer diagnosis

Identifiers

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.