ArticleBMC urology2021
Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection with various prostate sampling schemes based on different csPCa definitions.
Article in BMC urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Novel Indicator for Differential Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Based on Comprehensive Hematological Testing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and Clinical Impact of Imaging Modality on PSA Density: TRUS Versus MRI in Gray-Zone Prostate Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Can the contralateral systematic prostate biopsy be omitted in men with unilateral index lesion on MRI? A single-center retrospective study.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Optimizing the strategies to perform prostate biopsy in MRI-positive patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of unilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of [Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Management of Patients With a Negative Multiparametric Prostate MRI Examination:AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2024Review
- Lesion volume on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a non-invasive prognosticator for clinically significant prostate cancer.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a novel nomogram predicting clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men based on multi-institutional analysis.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Ipsilateral hemigland prostate biopsy may underestimate cancer burden in patients with unilateral mpMRI-visible lesions.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCombining targeted biopsy (TB) with systematic biopsy (SB) is currently recommended as the first-line biopsy method by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) with an abnormal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The combined SB and TB indeed detected an additional number of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa); however, it did so at the expense of a concomitant increase in biopsy cores. Our study aimed to evaluate if ipsilateral SB (ipsi-SB) + TB or contralateral SB (contra-SB) + TB could achieve almost equal csPCa detection rates as SB + TB using fewer cores based on a different csPCa definition.
methodsPatients with at least one positive prostate lesion were prospectively diagnosed by MRI. The combination of TB and SB was conducted in all patients. We compared the csPCa detection rates of the following four hypothetical biopsy sampling schemes with those of SB + TB: SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB.
resultsThe study enrolled 279 men. The median core of SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB was 10, 2, 7 and 7, respectively (P < 0.001). ipsi-SB + TB detected significantly more patients with csPCa than contra-SB + TB based on the EAU guidelines (P = 0.042). They were almost equal on the basis of the Epstein criteria (P = 1.000). Compared with SB + TB, each remaining method detected significantly fewer patients with csPCa regardless of the definition (P < 0.001) except ipsi-SB + TB on the grounds of D1 (P = 0.066). Ten additional subjects were identified with a higher Gleason score (GS) on contra-SB + TB, and only one was considered as significantly upgraded (GS = 6 on ipsi-SB + TB to a GS of 8 on contra-SB + TB).
conclusionsIpsi-SB + TB could acquire an almost equivalent csPCa detection value to SB + TB using significantly fewer cores when csPCa was defined according to the EAU guidelines. Given that there was only one significantly upgrading patient on contra-SB, our results suggested that contra-SB could be avoided.
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.