ArticleJournal of the Belgian Society of Radiology2016
TRUS-MR Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate: Radiological and Histological Correlation.
Article in Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Standard TRUS-Guided Prostate Biopsy the End of the Game?Urology research & practice · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTargeted magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy has been shown to improve the detection of high-grade prostate cancer and to reduce sampling errors. Our objective is to assess MR-TRUS targeted fusion biopsy versus standard biopsy for the detection of clinically significant tumors. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients were referred for abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) or risen prostate-specific antigen (PSA). If an MRI-visible lesion was detected, they were included in the study. In total, 102 men underwent MRI followed by MR-TRUS fusion biopsy between November 2014 and January 2016. Tumor grading was done with the clinical relevance in mind; a cutoff was used at Gleason 7 or higher. Standard biopsy results were collected from clinical practice during 2005 at the same institution to provide baseline values.
resultsA comparable rate of prostate cancer is found whether sampling is done at random (42.4%) or with the use of fusion biopsy (44.1%). However, these percentages are histologically different: fewer low-grade tumors are detected with MR-TRUS fusion biopsy (-19.1%), while more high-grade tumors are diagnosed (+26%). If there is an ultrasound-visible lesion in the prostate, the gain of combined MRI and fusion biopsy is less impressive.
conclusionFusion biopsy can provide more accurate information for optimal patient management, as it detects a higher percentage of high-grade prostate cancers than random sampling. Furthermore, nonrelevant tumors are less commonly detected using fusion biopsy.
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.