ArticleCureus2021
A Prospective Study and Single-Center Experience: Effectivity of Fusion Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Fusion prostate biopsy (FPB) has become a popular technique in biopsy-naïve patients, though not accepted as a standard approach (yet). In this study, we aimed to present the clinical outcomes of biopsy-naïve patients who underwent FPB. Material and methods The study included 400 biopsy-naïve patients aged 45-75 years who had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 2-10 ng/ml and were detected with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) ≥3 lesion on multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided FPB. A combined biopsy (CB) was performed in each patient, in which 2-4 cores were obtained for suspicious lesions by targeted biopsy (TB) and then 12-core standard prostate biopsy (SPB) was conducted in the same session. Cancer detection rates, clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates, histological upgrading rates, and false negative rates were determined. Results The 400 patients had a mean age of 62.01±7.00 years and a mean PSA value of 6.84±1.87 ng/ml. Overall PCa detection rate was 50% (200/400). The csPCa detection rates for TB, SPB, and CB were 25.0%, 31.8%, and 44.0%, respectively (p<0.001). In PIRADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions, CB had a csPCa detection rate of 29.2%, 54%, and 64.8%, respectively (p<0.001). The ratio of false negativity was significantly higher for TB compared to SPB (43.2% vs. 27.8%, p=0.003), whereas no significant difference was found between these two techniques with regard to upgrading rates although TB had a higher rate (19.6% vs. 13.7%, p=0.144). Conclusion FPB, a combined approach involving TB and SPB, was revealed as the most successful technique in biopsy-naïve patients with PSA<10 ng/ml due to its high cancer detection rates and low false negative rates.
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.