ArticleMedicine2019
Is targeted biopsy really needed when performing systematic prostate biopsy to raise the detection rate for prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL?
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostatic Biopsy and its Complications: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Targeted biopsy with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasound has been implemented to increase prostate cancer detection rate.We compared the detection abilities of systematic prostate biopsy, hypoechoic lesion-targeted biopsy (HL-TBx), and cognitive magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Between September 2014 and August 2016, 193 patients with a prostate-specific antigen level of 3 to 10 ng/mL underwent HL-TBx or MRI-TBx. In patients who refused magnetic resonance imaging examination before prostate biopsy, HL-TBx was performed. We compared cancer detection rates and pathologic outcomes between systematic prostate biopsy and HL-TBx or MRI-TBx.The cancer detection rates for HL-TBx and MRI-TBx were 40.8% and 43.8%, respectively, without a significant difference (P = .683). Of the 81 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, most patients (77 patients, 95.1%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer by systematic prostate biopsy. The detection ability for prostate cancer was significantly better for systematic prostate biopsy than for HL-TBx or MRI-TBx (P < .001).The detection abilities for clinically significant prostate cancer similar between HL-TBx and systematic prostate biopsy. Systematic prostate biopsy alone should be recommended for detection prostate cancer in patients with a prostate-specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL.
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.