ArticleThe Journal of urology2019
Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI and active surveillance: thoughts from across the pond.European radiology · 2025Review
- Is Active Surveillance Too Active?Current urology reports · 2023Review
- Association between previous negative biopsies and lower rates of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Considering Predictive Factors in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PI-RADS 3 Lesions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression for Men on Active Surveillance.European urology oncology · 2021Article
- Role of multiparametric prostate MRI in the management of prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2021Review
- Advanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Article
- Evolution of prostate cancer diagnosis: retrospective analysis of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsies protocol in routine practice and patients management.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Confirmatory multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at recruitment confers prolonged stay in active surveillance and decreases the rate of upgrading at follow-up.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2020Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Confirmatory Biopsy for Initiating Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- A novel predictor of clinical progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2019Article
- [Active surveillance in prostate cancer].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2019Review
- Role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeActive surveillance has gained acceptance as an alternative to definitive therapy in many men with prostate cancer. Confirmatory biopsies to assess the appropriateness of active surveillance are routinely performed and negative biopsies are regarded as a favorable prognostic indicator. We sought to determine the prognostic implications of negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy consisting of extended sextant, systematic biopsy plus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll patients referred with Gleason Grade Group 1 or 2 prostate cancer based on systematic biopsy performed elsewhere underwent confirmatory fusion biopsy. Patients who continued on active surveillance after a positive or a negative fusion biopsy were followed. The baseline characteristics of the biopsy negative and positive cases were compared. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the prognostic significance of a negative fusion biopsy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate Grade Group progression with time.
resultsOf the 542 patients referred with Grade Group 1 (466) or Grade Group 2 (76) cancer 111 (20.5%) had a negative fusion biopsy. A total of 60 vs 122 patients with a negative vs a positive fusion biopsy were followed on active surveillance with a median time to Grade Group progression of 74.3 and 44.6 months, respectively (p <0.01). Negative fusion biopsy was associated with a reduced risk of Grade Group progression (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.77, p <0.01).
conclusionsA negative confirmatory fusion biopsy confers a favorable prognosis for Grade Group progression. These results can be used when counseling patients about the risk of progression and for planning future followup and biopsies in patients on active surveillance.
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.