Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29382454›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2017

Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: Systematic and/or magnetic-resonance imaging-targeted.

Franck Bladou, Cora Fogaing, Mark Levental, Samuel Aronson, Mona Alameldin, Maurice Anidjar

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Franck BladouDepartment of Urology; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Cora FogaingDepartment of Urology; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Mark LeventalDepartment of Radiology; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Samuel AronsonDepartment of Urology; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Mona AlameldinDepartment of Pathology; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Maurice AnidjarDepartment of Urology; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jewish General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being more widely used in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), particularly after an initial negative biopsy. In this study, we compared 12-core systematic biopsy (SYS), MRI-targeted biopsy (TAR), and the association of systematic and MRI-targeted (SYS+TAR) prostate biopsy in patients with previous biopsy and those who were biopsy-naive to evaluate the differences in terms of cancer detection and clinically significant cancer detection between the three modalities.

methodsOverall, 203 consecutive patients with suspicion of PCa were analyzed; 48.2% were biopsy-naive and 51.7% had at least one previous negative prostate biopsy. The median age was 66 years, median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 7.9 ng/mL and median prostate volume was 46 mL. 38.9% had SYS, 19.2% TAR only, and 41.8% had SYS+TAR biopsy.

resultsOverall, the PCa detection (PCaDR) was 63%. The SYS+TAR biopsy detected significantly more cancer than SYS and TAR only biopsies (72.9% vs. 56.9% and 53.8% respectively; p=0.03). Detection rate of clinically significant cancer (csPCaDR) was 50.7% overall; 65.8% in the SYS+TAR biopsy vs. 39.2% in the SYS and 48.7% in the TAR groups (p=0.002). In the biopsy-naive group, PCaDR and csPCaDR were significantly higher in the SYS+TAR group than in the SYS and TAR groups (p=0.01). In the repeat biopsy group, PCaDR and csPCaDR were equivalent in the TAR and SYS+TAR groups and higher than in the SYS group (p=0.001).

conclusionsTAR biopsy, when added to SYS biopsy, was associated with a higher detection rate of csPCa in biopsy-naive patients when compared to TAR and SYS only biopsies. In patients after previous negative biopsy, detection rates of csPCa were equivalent for SYS+TAR and TAR only biopsies, but higher than SYS.

Identifiers

PMID29382454
PMCPMC5798436
OpenAlexW2754998100

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.