Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32701437›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2021

Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis.

Laurence Klotz, Giovanni Lughezzani, Davide Maffei, Andrea Sánchez, José Gregorio Pereira, Frédéric Staerman, Hannes Cash, Ferdinand Luger, Laurent Lopez, Rafael Sanchez-Salas and 16 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT07339943 (Micro-ultrasound-Guided Focal Laser Ablation), which is not on this map. Cited by 60 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT07339943 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Micro-ultrasound-Guided Focal Laser Ablation (MicroUSgFLA) Treatment for Management of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Safety and Effectiveness

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Health Network, TorontoRan2025 to 2027Enrolled7ConditionsProstate Cancer (Adenocarcinoma), Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate CancerArms6 month, prospective, interventional single-arm safety and effectiveness study, The TRANBERG, CLS Thermal therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. MR Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Biopsy and Primary Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Microultrasound imaging for accuracy of diagnosis in prostate cancer: a single‑center observational study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

Laurence KlotzSunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Giovanni LughezzaniInstituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy.
Davide MaffeiInstituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy.
Andrea SánchezUrología Clínica, Clínica IMQ Zorrotzaurre, Spain.
José Gregorio PereiraUrología Clínica, Clínica IMQ Zorrotzaurre, Spain.
Frédéric StaermanPolyclinique Reims-Bezannes, Bezannes, France.
Hannes CashCharité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ferdinand LugerOrdensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.
Laurent LopezGroupe Urologie Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France.
Rafael Sanchez-SalasInstitut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Rob AbouassalyGlickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Neal D ShoreCarolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, United States.
Gregg EureUrology of Virginia, Virginia Beach, VA, United States.
Marco PaciottiInstituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy.
Ander AstobietaUrología Clínica, Clínica IMQ Zorrotzaurre, Spain.
Laura WiemerCharité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Sebastian HofbauerCharité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Robin HeckmannCharité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas GusenleitnerOrdensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.
Jasmin KaarOrdensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.
Clemens MayrOrdensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.
Wolfgang LoidlOrdensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.
Jean RouffilangeGroupe Urologie Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France.
Richard GastonGroupe Urologie Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France.
Xavier CathelineauInstitut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Eric KleinGlickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Clinic IMQ Zorrotzaurre · ESFondazione Humanitas per la Ricerca · ITCarolina Urologic Research Center · USCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DECleveland Clinic · USInstitute Mutualiste Montsouris · FROrdensklinikum Linz Barmherzige Schwestern · ATSaint Laurent Polyclinique · FRSunnybrook Hospital · CAUrology of Virginia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHigh-resolution micro-ultrasound has the capability of imaging prostate cancer based on detecting alterations in ductal anatomy, analogous to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). This technology has the potential advantages of relatively low cost, simplicity, and accessibility compared to mpMRI. This multicenter, prospective registry aims to compare the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of mpMRI with high-resolution micro-ultrasound imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

methodsWe included 1040 subjects at 11 sites in seven countries who had prior mpMRI and underwent ExactVu micro-ultrasound-guided biopsy. Biopsies were taken from both mpMRI targets (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] >3 and micro-ultrasound targets (Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRIMUS] >3). Systematic biopsies (up to 14 cores) were also performed. Various strategies were used for mpMRI target sampling, including cognitive fusion with micro-ultrasound, separate software-fusion systems, and software-fusion using the micro-ultrasound FusionVu system. Clinically significant cancer was those with Gleason grade group ≥2.

resultsOverall, 39.5% were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer. Micro-ultrasound and mpMRI sensitivity was 94% vs. 90%, respectively (p=0.03), and NPV was 85% vs. 77%, respectively. Specificities of micro-ultrasound and MRI were both 22%, with similar PPV (44% vs. 43%). This represents the initial experience with the technology at most of the participating sites and, therefore, incorporates a learning curve. Number of cores, diagnostic strategy, blinding to MRI results, and experience varied between sites.

conclusionsIn this initial multicenter registry, micro-ultrasound had comparable or higher sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer compared to mpMRI, with similar specificity. Micro-ultrasound is a low-cost, single-session option for prostate screening and targeted biopsy. Further larger-scale studies are required for validation of these findings.

Identifiers

PMID32701437
PMCPMC7769516
OpenAlexW3043132908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.