ArticleBJU international2019
Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion-guided biopsies to properly select and follow African-American men on active surveillance.
Article in BJU international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progression on active surveillance for prostate cancer in Black men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Is Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System equally predictive across racial groups? A narrative review of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging performance in Black versus White men.Prostate international · 2026Review
- Disparities in the utilization of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection: a population-based study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Review of Active Surveillance in Underrepresented and High-Risk Populations: Feasibility and Safety.Current urology reports · 2023Review
- Article
- 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
17 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the rate of Gleason Grade Group (GGG) upgrading in African-American (AA) men with a prior diagnosis of low-grade prostate cancer (GGG 1 or GGG 2) on 12-core systematic biopsy (SB) after multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and fusion biopsy (FB); and whether AA men who continued active surveillance (AS) after mpMRI and FB fared differently than a predominantly Caucasian (non-AA) population. PATIENTS AND
methodsA database of men who had undergone mpMRI and FB was queried to determine rates of upgrading by FB amongst men deemed to be AS candidates based on SB prior to referral. After FB, Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for AA men and non-AA men who then elected AS. The time to GGG upgrading and time continuing AS were compared using the log-rank test.
resultsAA men referred with GGG 1 disease on previous SB were upgraded to GGG ≥3 by FB more often than non-AA men, 22.2% vs 12.7% (P = 0.01). A total of 32 AA men and 258 non-AA men then continued AS, with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 39.19 (24.24-56.41) months. The median time to progression was 59.7 and 60.5 months, respectively (P = 0.26). The median time continuing AS was 61.9 months and not reached, respectively (P = 0.80).
conclusionsAA men were more likely to be upgraded from GGG 1 on SB to GGG ≥3 on initial FB; however, AA and non-AA men on AS subsequently progressed at similar rates following mpMRI and FB. A greater tendency for SB to underestimate tumour grade in AA men may explain prior studies that have shown AA men to be at higher risk of progression during AS.
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.