Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30255394›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2019

MRI-guided in-bore biopsy for prostate cancer: what does the evidence say? A case series of 554 patients and a review of the current literature.

Morgan Pokorny, Boon Kua, Rachel Esler, John Yaxley, Hemamali Samaratunga, Nigel Dunglison, Troy Gianduzzo, Geoff Coughlin, Ross Holt, Barbara Laing and 4 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 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. [MR-Guided Targeted Prostate Biopsy from Radiologists' Perspective].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. The use of advanced imaging in guiding the further investigation and treatment of primary prostate cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

14 authors.

Morgan PokornyThe Wesley Hospital Urology Department, Brisbane, Australia. pokornyurology@gmail.com.
Boon KuaThe Wesley Hospital Urology Department, Brisbane, Australia.
Rachel EslerThe Wesley Hospital Urology Department, Brisbane, Australia.
John YaxleyThe Wesley Hospital Urology Department, Brisbane, Australia.
Hemamali SamaratungaAquesta Uropathology, Brisbane, Australia.
Nigel DunglisonThe Wesley Hospital Urology Department, Brisbane, Australia.
Troy GianduzzoThe Wesley Hospital Urology Department, Brisbane, Australia.
Geoff CoughlinThe Wesley Hospital Urology Department, Brisbane, Australia.
Ross HoltWesley Medical Imaging, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Barbara LaingWesley Medical Imaging, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Darren AultWesley Medical Imaging, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Nicholas BrownWesley Medical Imaging, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Rob ParkinsonWesley Medical Imaging, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Les ThompsonThe Wesley Hospital Urology Department, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo review our experience with MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy (MRGB) and present a review of the literature on MRGB.

methodsA retrospective review of patients presenting for MRGB between 2013 and 2018. Diagnostic and biopsy MRI scans were reviewed to collect data on scan dates, procedure times, characteristics of MRI targets (PI-RADS™ score, target size, ADC value and location). A review of the literature on MRGB for the period 2013-2018 was performed.

results607 targets in 554 men were biopsied. Overall and significant cancer detection rate were 80% and 55% at a patient level, and 76 and 59% at the target level, respectively. Prostate cancer (CaP) detection in men with prior negative biopsy was 60% while 50% of men on active surveillance were upgraded to clinically significant disease (CSD). Lesion location did not predict for presence of CaP or CSD. PI-RADS™ score, age and PSAD were predictors of CSD at biopsy on multivariate analysis. Literature review identified 23 reports reporting on MRGB cohorts (~ 4000 patients). Overall cancer detection ranged from 23 to 74% and CSD in 63% overall. CaP detection in PI-RADS™ 3 targets was substantially lower in our series and the literature than for PI-RADS™ 4-5 targets.

conclusionsMRGB in PI-RADS™ 3-5 targets yields high rates of cancer diagnosis. High detection rates are also seen in men with prior negative biopsy and AS cohorts. PI-RADS™ score, age and PSAD can reliably predict CSD detection. The number of published series is small and the role of MRGB in PI-RADS™ 3 targets needs further study.

Indexed as

AgedBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesWatchful WaitingIn-bore biopsyMRI-guided biopsyMultiparametric MRIProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID30255394

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.