Trial reportProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2021
Diagnostic yield of fusion magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy versus cognitive-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive patients: a head-to-head randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06517901 (MRI-targeted Fusion or Cognitive Ultrasound-guided Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
MRI-targeted Fusion or Cognitive Ultrasound-guided Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Pooled it
- MRI software and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy.The Journal of urology · 2023Guideline
- Trial
- Impact of Intraoperative Digital Stone Measurement on Surgeon Decision Making in Ureteroscopy.Urology · 2025Article
- Transperineal Free-Hand Prostate Fusion Biopsy with AI-Driven Auto-Contouring: First Results of a Prospective Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Review
- Advances in imaging and artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis and biopsy guidance in prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Superior detection of significant prostate cancer by transperineal prostate biopsy using MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion image guidance over cognitive registration.International journal of clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Frequency of Biopsy and Tumor Grade Before vs After Introduction of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe combination of MRI-guided targeted biopsy (MRGB) with systematic biopsy (SB) provides the highest accuracy in detecting prostate cancer. There is a controversy over the superiority of fusion targeted biopsy (fus-MRGB) over cognitive targeted biopsy (cog-MRGB). The present head-to-head randomized controlled trial was performed to compare diagnostic yield of fus-MRGB in combination with SB with cog-MRGB in combination with SB.
methodsBiopsy-naive patients with a prostate-specific antigen level between 2 and 10 ng/dL who were candidates for prostate biopsy were included in the study. Multiparametric MRI was performed on all patients and patients with suspicious lesions with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score of 3 or more were randomized into two groups. In the cog-MRGB group, a targeted cognitive biopsy was performed followed by a 12-core SB. Similarly, in the fus-MRGB group, first targeted fusion biopsy and then SBs were performed. The overall and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates between the two study groups were compared by the Pearson χ
resultsOne-hundred men in the cog-MRGB group and 99 men in the fus-MRGB group were compared. The baseline characteristics of patients including age, PSA level, prostate volume, PSA density, and clinical stage were similar in the two groups (p > 0.05). Both the overall and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates in the fus-MRGB group (44.4% and 33.3%, respectively) were significantly higher than cog-MRGB group (31.0% and 19.0%, respectively) (p = 0.035 and p = 0.016, respectively).
conclusionThe accuracy of identifying overall and clinically significant prostate cancer by fus-MRGB in biopsy-naive patients with PSA levels between 2 and 10 ng/dL is significantly higher than cog-MRGB and if available, we recommend using fus-MRGB over cog-MRGB in these patients.
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.