Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31204311›Full record

SynthesisEuropean urology oncology2019

Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-stratified Clinical Pathways and Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy Pathway for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Sungmin Woo, Chong Hyun Suh, James A Eastham, Michael J Zelefsky, Michael J Morris, Wassim Abida, Howard I Scher, Robert Sidlow, Anton S Becker, Andreas G Wibmer and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European urology oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Successes and challenges in developing a magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound machine fusion prostate biopsy service.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Sungmin WooDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: j_crew7@hotmail.com.
Chong Hyun SuhDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
James A EasthamUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Michael J ZelefskyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Michael J MorrisGenitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Wassim AbidaGenitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Howard I ScherGenitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Robert SidlowIntegrative Medicine Service, Division of Survivorship and Supportive Care, Bendheim Center for Integrative Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Anton S BeckerDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Andreas G WibmerDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Hedvig HricakDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Hebert Alberto VargasDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextRecent studies suggested that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by targeted biopsy ("MRI-stratified pathway") detects more clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) than the systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) pathway, but controversy persists. Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were recently published, enabling generation of higher-level evidence to evaluate this hypothesis.

objectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the detection rates of csPCa in the MRI-stratified pathway and the systematic TRUS-Bx pathway in patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to March 18, 2019. RCTs reporting csPCa detection rates of both pathways in patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer were included. Relative csPCa detection rates of the MRI-stratified pathway were pooled using random-effect model. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. A comparison of detection rates of clinically insignificant PCa (cisPCa) and any PCa was also performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine RCTs (2908 patients) were included. The MRI-stratified pathway detected more csPCa than the TRUS-Bx pathway (relative detection rate 1.45 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.09-1.92] for all patients, and 1.42 [95% CI 1.02-1.97] and 1.60 [95% CI 1.01-2.54] for biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy patients, respectively). Detection rates were not significantly different between pathways for cisPCa (0.89 [95% CI 0.49-1.62]), but higher in the MRI-stratified pathway for the detection of any PCa (1.39 [95% CI 1.05-1.84]).

conclusionsThe MRI-stratified pathway detected more csPCa than the systematic TRUS-guided biopsy pathway in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa, for both biopsy-naïve patients and those with prior negative biopsy. The detection rate of any PCa was higher in the MRI-stratified pathway, but not significantly different from that of cisPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our meta-analysis of clinical trials shows that the magnetic resonance imaging-stratified pathway detects more clinically significant prostate cancers than the transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy pathway in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer.

Indexed as

HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUltrasound, High-Intensity Focused, TransrectalBiopsyMagnetic resonance imagingMeta-analysisProstate cancerSystematic reviewTargeted biopsy

Identifiers

PMID31204311
PMCPMC7406122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.