Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30838429›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2019

[Fusion biopsies for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer : Implementation, benefits, and clinical aspects].

L Püllen, B Hadaschik, D Eberli, T H Kuru

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

L PüllenKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland. lukas.puellen@uk-essen.de.
B HadaschikKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland.
D EberliKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz.
T H KuruKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Köln, Köln, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate carcinoma is one of the most common tumors worldwide. Histological confirmation by biopsy is an obligatory part of the diagnostic approach. The main problem of the 10-12-fold transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, which has so far been regarded as the gold standard, is the underdiagnosis of clinically significant cancer. MRI-based procedures, so-called fusion biopsies, have shown superior results when compared to conventional biopsies. There are three different approaches (cognitive and software-based MRI/TRUS fusion and in-bore biopsy) with comparable detection rates but differences in the technical aspects and time involvement. In order to reduce fusion errors, targeted biopsies should consist of multiple cores. There is currently no clear preference for the access pathway (transrectal or transperineal), but clinical parameters such as infection risk or location of the tumor can influence the decision. While the German S3 guideline considers MRI prior to primary biopsy to be optional, the 2019 European Association of Urology guidelines already recommend MRI prior to biopsy for all patients. The combination of MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy offers the highest detection rates with the disadvantage that more low-risk tumors are diagnosed. Both the patient and the urologist benefit from an improved informative value of the biopsy when deciding on active surveillance as well as when planning invasive therapies.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeoplasm StagingPractice Guidelines as TopicProstatic NeoplasmsUrologistsActive surveillanceMagnetic resonance imagingProphylaxisRebiopsyTransrectal ultrasound

Identifiers

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.