ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2018
Initial experience of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion transperineal biopsy: Biopsy techniques and results for 75 patients.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2018. 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.
- Advanced prostate cancer diagnosed by bone metastasis biopsy immediately after initial negative prostate biopsy: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Impact of delay from transperineal biopsy to radical prostatectomy upon objective measures of cancer control.Asian journal of urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study is to describe the technique and to report early results of transperineal magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI-US) fusion biopsy. Materials and Methods: A total of 75 patients underwent MRI-US fusion transperineal biopsy. Targeted biopsy via MRI-US fusion imaging was carried out for cancer-suspicious lesions with additional systematic biopsy. Detection rates for overall and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) were evaluated and compared between systematic and targeted biopsy. In addition, further investigation into the detection rate according to prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score was done. Results of repeat biopsies were also evaluated. Results: Overall cancer detection rate was 61.3% (46 patients) and the detection rate for csPCa was 42.7% (32 patients). Overall detection rates for systematic and targeted biopsy were 41.3% and 57.3% (p<0.05), respectively. Detection rates for csPCa were 26.7% and 41.3%, respectively (p<0.05). The cancer detection rates via MRI fusion target biopsy were 30.8% in PI-RADS 3, 62.1% in PI-RADS 4 and 89.4% in PI-RADS 5. Rates of csPCa missed by targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy were 0.0% and 25.0%, respectively. The cancer detection rate in repeat biopsies was 61.1% (11 among 18 patients) in which 55.5% of cancer suspected lesions were located in the anterior portion. Conclusions: Transperineal MRI-US fusion biopsy is useful for improving overall cancer detection rate and especially detection of csPCa. Transperineal MRI-US targeted biopsy show potential benefits to improve cancer detection rate in patients with high PI-RADS score, tumor located at the anterior portion and in repeat biopsies.
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.