Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32357283›Full record

ArticleBJU international2021

Comparing confirmatory biopsy outcomes between MRI-targeted biopsy and standard systematic biopsy among men being enrolled in prostate cancer active surveillance.

Daniel D Shapiro, Justin R Gregg, Amy H Lim, Graciela M Nogueras-González, Haesun Choi, Hyunseon C Kang, Irene A Inguillo, Brian F Chapin, John W Davis, John F Ward

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel D ShapiroDepartment of Urology, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4079-9051
Justin R GreggDepartment of Urology, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3852-8199
Amy H LimDepartment of Urology, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.
Graciela M Nogueras-GonzálezDepartment of Biostatistics, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.
Haesun ChoiDepartment of Urology, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.
Hyunseon C KangDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.
Irene A InguilloDepartment of Urology, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.
Brian F ChapinDepartment of Urology, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.
John W DavisDepartment of Urology, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.
John F WardDepartment of Urology, Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, M.D., Houston, TX, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy combined with systematic biopsy (MRI-biopsy) to reduce negative biopsies and detect clinically significant prostate cancer compared to systematic biopsy (SB) alone in the confirmatory biopsy setting using matched cohorts. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients were identified from an active surveillance database who had a previously positive transrectal ultrasonography-guided SB followed by a confirmatory biopsy at a single institution between 2006 and 2019. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on confirmatory biopsy technique: SB alone or MRI-biopsy (which included MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies). Cohorts were then matched on age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, number of positive cores on initial biopsy and initial biopsy Gleason grade group (GG). Logistic regression was performed to identify associations with confirmatory biopsy upgrading.

resultsAfter matching, 514 patients were identified (257 per cohort). PSA, prostate volume and PSA density prior to initial biopsy, in addition to total number of initial biopsy positive cores and GG, were similar between the matched cohorts. After confirmatory biopsy, 118/257 patients (45.9%) in the MRI-biopsy cohort were upgraded compared to 46/257 patients (17.9%) in the SB cohort (P < 0.001). The rate of negative confirmatory biopsy was 32/257 (12.5%) compared to 97/257 (37.7%) in the MRI-biopsy and SB cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001). Confirmatory MRI-biopsy was associated with greater odds of confirmatory biopsy upgrade from GG 1 to ≥GG 2 compared to SB alone (odds ratio 3.62, 95% confidence interval 1.97-6.63; P < 0.001).

conclusionThe addition of MRI-targeted biopsies to SB in the confirmatory biopsy setting among men with previously detected prostate cancer resulted in fewer negative confirmatory biopsies and detection of more clinically significant prostate cancer compared to SB alone.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyAgedBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleFalse Negative ReactionsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingProstatic NeoplasmsWatchful Waitingactive surveillancebiopsymagnetic resonance imaging#PCSMprostate cancer#ProstateCancer

Identifiers

PMID32357283
PMCPMC9798524
OpenAlexW3021689587

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.