Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34327554›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2021

Ultrasound fusion biopsy.

Markus Herbert Lerchbaumer, Thomas Fischer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Markus Herbert LerchbaumerDepartment of Radiology, Interdisciplinary Ultrasound Center, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. markus.lerchbaumer@charite.de.
Thomas FischerDepartment of Radiology, Interdisciplinary Ultrasound Center, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasound (US)-guided biopsy is widely used for the diagnostic confirmation of focal lesions. For sampling of prostate tissue, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/US fusion-guided biopsy has already been implemented in routine clinical practice and has shown a superior detection rate of significant prostate cancer in risk assessment compared with standard systematic biopsy. Newer three-dimensional software tools with volumetric mapping of the prostate and biopsy core channels provide a better overview of systematic biopsy and thus contribute to more accurate treatment planning. Automatic fusion is a time-saver and can reduce potential examiner errors through greater standardization of the fusion process itself. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: In abdominal pathologies, US fusion biopsy can improve the rate of successful tissue sampling by using fused imaging to target lesions that are barely visible or difficult to delineate on B‑mode US scans. In addition, solid portions within larger tumors with enhancement on contrast-enhanced US can be targeted selectively, thereby avoiding sampling of necrotic areas and improving the quality of tissue cores for histopathological work-up.

conclusionEspecially in complex situations, use of US fusion not only saves time but also improves sampling accuracy, which in turn reduces the rate of insufficient tissue specimens that necessitate repeat biopsy.

Indexed as

BiopsyHumansFusion-guided biopsyRisk assessmentTumorsUltrasonographyUltrasound-guided intervention

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.