ArticleThe Journal of urology2018
Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration during Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Multi-Operator Phantom Study.
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 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI-based radiomics for prediction of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.La Radiologia medica · 2024Pooled it
- Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy.The Journal of urology · 2023Guideline
- Mixed reality navigation system for ultrasound-guided and fusion biopsies using markerless instrument tracking.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Targeted biopsy of the prostate.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Comparison of rigid and elastic registration methods in software-based targeted prostate biopsy: a multicenter cohort study.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Biomechanical modelling of the pelvic system: improving the accuracy of the location of neoplasms in MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Article
- Usability and diagnostic accuracy of different MRI/ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy systems for the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer: a prospective cohort study.World journal of urology · 2021Observational
- Techniques and Outcomes of MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy.Current urology reports · 2021Review
- High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer with MRI-US Fusion Platform.Advances in urology · 2021Article
- [Fusion biopsies for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer : Implementation, benefits, and clinical aspects].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2019Review
- The role of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2019Article
- The use of prostate MR for targeting prostate biopsies.BJR open · 2019Review
- Multiparametric ultrasound of prostate: role in prostate cancer diagnosis.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe relative value of rigid or elastic registration during magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy has been poorly studied. We compared registration errors (the distance between a region of interest and fiducial markers) between rigid and elastic registration during fusion guided prostate biopsy using a prostate phantom model. MATERIALS AND
methodsFour gold fiducial markers visible on magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound were placed throughout 1 phantom prostate model. The phantom underwent magnetic resonance imaging and the fiducial markers were labeled as regions of interest. An experienced user and a novice user of fusion guided prostate biopsy targeted regions of interest and then the corresponding fiducial markers on ultrasound after rigid and then elastic registration. Registration errors were compared.
resultsA total of 224 registration error measurements were recorded. Overall elastic registration did not provide significantly improved registration error over rigid registration (mean ± SD 4.87 ± 3.50 vs 4.11 ± 2.09 mm, p = 0.05). However, lesions near the edge of the phantom showed increased registration errors when using elastic registration (5.70 ± 3.43 vs 3.23 ± 1.68 mm, p = 0.03). Compared to the novice user the experienced user reported decreased registration error with rigid registration (3.25 ± 1.49 vs 4.98 ± 2.10 mm, p <0.01) and elastic registration (3.94 ± 2.61 vs 6.07 ± 4.16 mm, p <0.01).
conclusionsWe found no difference in registration errors between rigid and elastic registration overall but rigid registration decreased the registration error of targets near the prostate edge. Additionally, operator experience reduced registration errors regardless of the registration method. Therefore, elastic registration algorithms cannot serve as a replacement for attention to detail during the registration process and anatomical landmarks indicating accurate registration when beginning the procedure and before targeting each region of interest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.