ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021
Systematic biopsy should not be omitted in the era of combined magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies of the prostate.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Prostate Multiparametric MRI Parameters with Gleason Score: A Fusion Biopsy-Based CorrelationCurrent medical imaging · 2026Article
- Sextant Systematic Biopsy Versus Extended 12-Core Systematic Biopsy in Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Evaluation of systematic prostate biopsies when performing transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy with needle tracking-what is the additional value?International urology and nephrology · 2022Article
- Combining targeted and systematic prostate biopsy improves prostate cancer detection and correlation with the whole mount histopathology in biopsy naïve and previous negative biopsy patients.Frontiers in surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate prostate cancer detection rates with classical trans-rectal ultrasound-guided systematic 10-core biopsies (SB), targeted biopsies (TB) guided by magnetic resonance (MR)/US fusion imaging and their combination in biopsy-naïve and patients with previously negative prostate biopsies. We compared pathology results after radical prostatectomy with biopsy findings.
methodsConsecutive patients with prostate imaging-reporting and data system lesions grade ≥ 3 submitted to MRI/US-guided TB and subsequent standard 10-core SB between December 2015 and June 2019 were analyzed.
resultsDetection rate (TB- or SB-positive) in 563 included patients (192 naïve, 371 with previous biopsies) was 56.7% (67.7% for the first, 50.9% for repeated biopsies). With TB (disregarding SB), the rates were 41.4%, 52.1% and 35.8%, respectively. With SB (disregarding TB), the rates were 49.1%, 63.0% and 41.8%, respectively. Eventually, 118 patients underwent surgery and clinically significant cancer was found in 111 (94.1%) specimens. Of those, 23 (20.7%) would have been missed had we relied upon a negative TB and 14 (12.6%) would have been missed had we relied upon a negative SB, disregarding a positive finding on the alternative biopsy template.
conclusionSB should not be omitted since TB and SB combination have higher detection rate of clinically relevant prostate cancer than either procedure alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34505227What 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.