Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31390032›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2019

Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Biopsy Alone for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Martha M C Elwenspoek, Athena L Sheppard, Matthew D F McInnes, Samuel W D Merriel, Edward W J Rowe, Richard J Bryant, Jenny L Donovan, Penny Whiting

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05384535 (Utility of Biparametric MRI), which is not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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.

NCT05384535 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Utility of Biparametric MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) as a Screening Tool for Prostate Cancer in a High-Risk Cohort

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthwell HealthRan2022 to 2028Enrolled100ConditionsProstate Cancer, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Population at RiskArmsBi-parametric MRI
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Prostate cancer detection: achieving an optimal balance.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Martha M C ElwenspoekNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Athena L SheppardNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Matthew D F McInnesDepartment of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Samuel W D MerrielCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Edward W J RoweBristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Richard J BryantNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jenny L DonovanNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Penny WhitingNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385Department of Health RM-SR-2017-08-012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The current diagnostic pathway for patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) includes prostate biopsy. A large proportion of individuals who undergo biopsy have either no PCa or low-risk disease that does not require treatment. Unnecessary biopsies may potentially be avoided with prebiopsy imaging. Objective: To compare the performance of systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy vs prebiopsy biparametric or multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by targeted biopsy with or without systematic biopsy. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of recent reviews were searched through December 2018 for randomized clinical trials using the terms "prostate cancer" and "MRI." Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing diagnostic pathways including prebiopsy MRI vs systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with a clinical suspicion of PCa. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. All review stages were conducted by 2 reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Detection rate of clinically significant and insignificant PCa, number of biopsy procedures, number of biopsy cores taken, and complications. Results: Seven high-quality trials (2582 patients) were included. Compared with systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy alone, MRI with or without targeted biopsy was associated with a 57% (95% CI, 2%-141%) improvement in the detection of clinically significant PCa, a 33% (95% CI, 23%-45%) potential reduction in the number of biopsy procedures, and a 77% (95% CI, 60%-93%) reduction in the number of cores taken per procedure. One trial showed reduced pain and bleeding adverse effects. Systematic sampling of the prostate in addition to the acquisition of targeted cores did not significantly improve the detection of clinically significant PCa compared with systematic biopsy alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, prebiopsy MRI combined with targeted biopsy vs systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy alone was associated with improved detection of clinically significant PCa, despite substantial heterogeneity among trials. Prebiopsy MRI was associated with a reduced number of individual biopsy cores taken per procedure and with reduced adverse effects, and it potentially prevented unnecessary biopsies in some individuals. This evidence supports implementation of prebiopsy MRI into diagnostic pathways for suspected PCa.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingPredictive Value of TestsProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31390032
PMCPMC6686781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.