ArticleAsian journal of andrology
Can we omit systematic biopsies in patients undergoing MRI fusion-targeted prostate biopsies?
Article in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging tools for the early detection of prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2025Review
- Article
- Enhancing Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Comparative Analysis of Combined Fusion and Systematic Biopsy Methods-A Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Navigating the evolving diagnostic and therapeutic landscape of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Asian journal of andrology · 2024Review
- Clinical value of prostate health index as an indicator for recommending magnetic resonance imaging in patients with gray-zone prostate-specific antigen level.World journal of urology · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy is the recommended investigation in men with suspicious lesion(s) on MRI. The role of concurrent systematic in addition to targeted biopsies is currently unclear. Using our prospectively maintained database, we identified men with at least one Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥3 lesion who underwent targeted and/or systematic biopsies from May 2016 to May 2020. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as any Gleason grade group ≥2 cancer. Of 545 patients who underwent MRI fusion-targeted biopsy, 222 (40.7%) were biopsy naïve, 247 (45.3%) had previous prostate biopsy(s), and 76 (13.9%) had known prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance. Prostate cancer was more commonly found in biopsy-naïve men (63.5%) and those on active surveillance (68.4%) compared to those who had previous biopsies (35.2%; both P < 0.001). Systematic biopsies provided an incremental 10.4% detection of csPCa among biopsy-naïve patients, versus an incremental 2.4% among those who had prior negative biopsies. Multivariable regression found age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, P = 0.03), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density ≥0.15 ng ml
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.