Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29997460›Full record

ArticleCurrent urology2018

Cognitive-Targeted versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Detection.

Daniël F Osses, Joost J van Asten, Jasper D Tijsterman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

3 authors.

Daniël F OssesDepartment of Urology, Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Joost J van AstenDepartment of Urology, Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Jasper D TijstermanDepartment of Urology, Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPurpose of this study is to evaluate the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) for cognitive-targeted biopsy (CTB) in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy (MRGB) related to prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score, lesion location and lesion volume. Furthermore, the addition of systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) to CTB is evaluated. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe included all patients with cancer-suspicious lesions on 3-Tesla multiparametric MRI who underwent either CTB and additional TRUS-GB or only MRGB (in-bore) in Haga Teaching Hospital between January 2013 and January 2015.

resultsIn total 219 patients were included: 64 CTB + TRUS-GB and 155 MRGB. In 32 (50%) men with CTB was positive for PCa. PI-RADS 3-, 4- and 5-lesions were in 17, 69 and 95% positive, respectively. In 100 men (65%) with MRGB was positive for PCa. Detection rates for PI-RADS 3-, 4- and 5-lesions were 10, 77 and 89%, respectively. CTB missed 4 (11%) low-grade tumors detected by TRUS-GB. In lesions between 0-1.5 ml PCa were significantly more often detected with MRGB than with CTB (69 vs. 39%).

conclusionCTB has a high detection rate of PCa in men with cancer-suspicious lesions on MRI. Correction for lesion volume shows that in lesions < 1.5 ml MRGB is more accurate than CTB. The addition of TRUS-GB to CTB can safely be avoided without missing any high grade PCa.

Indexed as

Detection rateMultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerTargeted prostate biopsy

Identifiers

PMID29997460
PMCPMC6036586

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.