Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29380130›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2018

Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic- or in-bore MRI target biopsy.

Sascha Kaufmann, Giorgio I Russo, Fabian Bamberg, Lorenz Löwe, Giuseppe Morgia, Konstantin Nikolaou, Arnulf Stenzl, Stephan Kruck, Jens Bedke

Abstract readComparative Study
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 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
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

9 authors.

Sascha KaufmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str.3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Giorgio I RussoDepartment of Urology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str.3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. giorgioivan1987@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4687-7353
Fabian BambergDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str.3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Lorenz LöweDepartment of Urology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str.3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Giuseppe MorgiaUrology Section, Department of Surgery, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 78, 95125, Catania, Italy.
Konstantin NikolaouDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str.3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Arnulf StenzlDepartment of Urology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str.3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Stephan KruckDepartment of Urology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str.3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. Stephan.kruck@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Jens BedkeDepartment of Urology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str.3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the detection rate among three different targeted biopsy approaches of robot-assisted MRI/TRUS fusion (RA-TB), mpMRI in-bore (MRGB), cognitive fusion guidance biopsy (COG-TB) for the detection of prostate cancer (PC) and clinically significant PC (csPC).

methodsBetween 2014 and 2016, 156 patients with a lesion on mpMRI, performed in accordance with ESUR guidelines, due to cancer suspicion or on-going cancer suspicion after prior negative prostate biopsy, underwent targeted biopsy with RA-TB, MRGB or COG-TB. All lesions were rated according to PI-RADS v2. We compared detection rates between techniques. Models were constructed to predict the detection of overall PC and csPC and using a 1000 boot-strap sample.

resultsIn the all cohort, 73, 45 and 38 patients underwent RA-TB, MRGB or COG-TB, respectively. Overall PC was found in 39 (52.42%), 23 (51.11%) and 11 (28.95%) (p = 0.04) patients of RA-TB, MRGB and COG-TB arm, respectively. As concerning the detection of csPC, it was found in 26 (35.62%),18 (40.0%) and 9 (23.68%) patients of RA-TB, MRGB and COG-TB arm (p = 0.27). Model 1 showed that RA-TB [OR: 10.08 (95% CI 1.95-51.97); p < 0.01] and MRGB [OR: 12.88 (95% CI 2.36-70.25); p < 0.01] were associated with overall PC detection in TB, while only MRGB was associated with csPC at TB (model 2) [OR: 5.72; (95% CI 1.40-23.35); p < 0.01]. The c-index for model 1 and model 2 was 0.86 and 0.85, respectively. We did not report significant complications between groups.

conclusionIn-bore biopsy and MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy showed greater accuracy in detecting PC compared to cognitive fusion as modeled in a newly established normogram.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsAgedComparative Effectiveness ResearchDimensional Measurement AccuracyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance Imaging, InterventionalMaleMiddle AgedProstateRobotic Surgical ProceduresCognitive prostate biopsyIn-bore prostate biopsyNomogramProstate cancerRobot-assisted fusion biopsy

Identifiers

PMID29380130

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.