ArticleBJUI compass2022
Impact of MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy on biopsy-naïve patients: A single urologist's experience.
Article in BJUI compass, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of urology and radiology in prostate biopsy: current trends and future perspectives.World journal of urology · 2024Review
- Impact of MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy on biopsy-naïve patients: A single urologist's experience.BJUI compass · 2022Article
- Behind the scenes.BJUI compass · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To report our experience with imaging-guided targeted prostate biopsy (IGTpBx) for patients undergoing initial prostate biopsy in a clinical setting. Materials and methods: From July 2014 to February 2020, 305 men who had IGTpBx performed as their first prostate biopsy were enrolled. Two dedicated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiologists segmented at least 1 region of interest (ROI) for each of these men using screening 1.5T MRI images. A single urologist employed the robotic-assisted Artemis MRI/ultrasonography (US) fusion platform to obtain 2-3 targeted samples from each ROI and additional random samples from the zones of the prostate outside the ROIs (a total of 12 zonal samples). Biopsy outcomes were categorized based on the Gleason score (GS) grade group (GG) as no cancer, favorable (GG < 3 or GS < 4 + 3), or clinically significant (GG ≥ 3 or GS ≥ 4 + 3) cancer. Results: The overall cancer detection rate was 75%:31% clinically significant, 44% favorable, and 25% no cancer. These findings triggered active interventions in 176 (58%) patients. A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 0-4 ng/mL was detected in 39 (66%) of 59 patients (32 favorable, 7 significant), 4-10 ng/mL in 147 (77%) of 190 patients (85 favorable, 62 significant), and 10 ng/mL and over in 44 (80%) of 55 patients (17 favorable, 27 significant). Conclusions: The tumor detection rate was 75% with IGTpBx in patients without a previous biopsy. In addition, about 42% of detected cancers were deemed clinically significant and led to active interventions. IGTpBx as a patient's first prostate biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer when compared with historical data for random systematic prostate biopsy.
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.