ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2020
Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus combined magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion and systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection in routine clinical practice.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparison of Accuracies between Real-Time Nonrigid and Rigid Registration in the MRI-US Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Multimodality advanced imaging and intervention in gland diseases.Gland surgery · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe goal of this study was to retrospectively compare systematic ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (US-PB) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (MRI-PB) in men undergoing primary or repeated biopsies.
methodsA population of 2,200 patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level >4.0 ng/ dL and/or an abnormal rectal examination was divided into two groups. All patients underwent US-PB (n=1,021) or MRI-PB (n=1,179) between April 2015 and April 2019. Population demographics, including age, PSA level, digital rectal examination results, prostate volume, number of previous negative biopsies, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (V2) score, and biopsy results, were acquired and compared with respect to these variables. Univariate regression analysis of the risk factors for a higher Gleason score (GS) was performed.
resultsThe cancer detection rate (CDR) was 23.8% (243 of 1,021) in the US-PB group and 31.3% (399 of 1,179) in the MRI-PB group. Of those, 225 patients (22.0%) in the US-PB group and 374 patients (31.7%) in the MRI-PB group had clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The patients with csPCa in the MRI-PB group included 10 (40%), 50 (62.5%), 184 (94.8%), and 32 (94.1%) patients with PI-RADS V2 scores of 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Of the patients with csPCa, 155 (91.7%) in the US-PB group were diagnosed on the basis of the primary biopsy, compared to 308 (94.4%) in the MRI-PB group. We found the PI-RADS V2 score to be the best predictor of a higher GS.
conclusionMRI-PB showed a high CDR for csPCa. MRI-PB could be a reasonable approach in patients with high PI-RADS V2 scores at primary biopsy.
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.