ReviewWorld journal of urology2021
Moving away from systematic biopsies: image-guided prostate biopsy (in-bore biopsy, cognitive fusion biopsy, MRUS fusion biopsy) -literature review.
Review in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Residents and Consultants Have Equal Outcomes When Performing Transrectal Fusion Biopsies: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Trial
- Review
- Lesion size may affect diagnostic capabilities of MRI-guided ultrasound fusion biopsy and cognitive targeted biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The influence of Gleason score ≤ 6 histology on the outcome of high-risk localized prostate cancer after modern radiotherapy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Creating a novel multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based biopsy strategy for reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies: a retrospective cohort study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- The learning curve and experience of a novel multi-modal image fusion targeted transperineal prostate biopsy technique using electromagnetic needle tracking under local anesthesia.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Alternatives for MRI in Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Review of Current Ultrasound-Based Techniques.Cancers · 2022Review
- MRI/US fusion transperineal versus transrectral biopsy of prostate cancer: Outcomes and complication rates, a tertiary medical center experience in the Middle East.Turkish journal of urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the detection rate of clinically significant cancer (CSCa) by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) with that by standard systematic biopsy (SB) and to evaluate the role of MRI-TB as a replacement from SB in men at clinical risk of prostate cancer.
methodsThe non-systematic literature was searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles using PubMed, including the prospective paired studies, where the index test was MRI-TB and the comparator text was SB. Also the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are included if one arm was MRI-TB and another arm was SB.
resultsEighteen prospective studies used both MRI-TB and TRUS-SB, and eight RCT received one of the tests for prostate cancer detection. In most prospective trials to compare MRI-TB vs. SB, there was no significant difference in any cancer detection rate; however, MRI-TB detected more men with CSCa and fewer men with CISCa than SB.
conclusionMRI-TB is superior to SB in detection of CSCa. Since some significant cancer was detected by SB only, a combination of SB with the TB technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of CSCa.
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.