Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29943220›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2019

Beyond transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: available techniques and approaches.

Christopher Warlick, Jurgen Futterer, Mahir Maruf, Arvin K George, Ardeshir R Rastinehad, Peter A Pinto, Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily, Arnauld Villers, Caroline M Moore, Neil Mendhiratta and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Povidone-iodine for transrectal prostate biopsy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Christopher WarlickDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jurgen FuttererDepartment of Radiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mahir MarufUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Arvin K GeorgeUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Ardeshir R RastinehadDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Peter A PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Ahmed El-Shater BosailyDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Arnauld VillersCentre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France.
Caroline M MooreDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Neil MendhirattaSchool of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Samir S TanejaSchool of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Osamu UkimuraDepartment of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Badrinath R KonetyDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. brkonety@umn.edu.
National Cancer Institute · USNYU Langone Health · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Minnesota · USCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille · FRIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Prostate SectionZIABC011081 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI PINTO, PETER · 2009 to 2025
$15.2M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRecent advances have led to the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone or with fusion to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images for guiding biopsy of the prostate. Our group sought to develop consensus recommendations regarding MRI-guided prostate biopsy based on currently available literature and expert opinion.

methodsThe published literature on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy was reviewed using standard search terms and synthesized and analyzed by four different subgroups from among the authors. The literature was grouped into four categories-MRI-guided biopsy platforms, robotic MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy, template mapping biopsy and transrectal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy. Consensus recommendations were developed using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine criteria.

resultsThere is limited high level evidence available on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy. MRI guidance with or without TRUS fusion can lead to fewer unnecessary biopsies, help identify high-risk (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4) cancers that might have been missed on standard TRUS biopsy and identify cancers in the anterior prostate. There is no apparent significant difference between MRI biopsy platforms. Template mapping biopsy is perhaps the most accurate method of assessing volume and grade of tumor but is accompanied by higher incidence of side effects compared to TRUS biopsy.

conclusionsMagnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies are feasible and better than traditional ultrasound-guided biopsies for detecting high-risk prostate cancer and anterior lesions. Judicious use of MRI-guided biopsy could enhance diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer while limiting diagnosis of insignificant cancer.

Indexed as

BiopsyBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleEndosonographyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstateProstatic NeoplasmsMRI biopsyMRI fusionProstate cancerTemplate biopsy

Identifiers

PMID29943220
OpenAlexW2810612533

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.