ArticleCancers2022
Comparison of Proclarix, PSA Density and MRI-ERSPC Risk Calculator to Select Patients for Prostate Biopsy after mpMRI.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Proclarix' performance in ruling out patients with no or indolent prostate cancer: evaluation in a Danish population.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Sequencing the Barcelona-MRI predictive model and Proclarix for improving the uncertain PI-RADS 3.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Proclarix in the diagnostic work-up of prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- The Potential of Extracellular Matrix- and Integrin Adhesion Complex-Related Molecules for Prostate Cancer Biomarker Discovery.Biomedicines · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tools to properly select candidates for prostate biopsy after magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have usually been analyzed in overall populations with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). However, the performance of these tools can change regarding the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) categories due to the different incidence of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). The objective of the study was to analyze PSA density (PSAD), MRI-ERSPC risk calculator (RC), and Proclarix to properly select candidates for prostate biopsy regarding PI-RADS categories. We performed a head-to-head analysis of 567 men with suspected PCa, PSA > 3 ng/mL and/or abnormal rectal examination, in whom two to four core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsies to PI-RADS ≥ three lesions and/or 12-core TRUS systematic biopsies were performed after 3-tesla mpMRI between January 2018 and March 2020 in one academic institution. The overall detection of csPCa was 40.9% (6% in PI-RADS < 3, 14.8% in PI-RADS 3, 55.3% in PI-RADS 4, and 88.9% in PI-RADS 5). MRI-ERSPC model exhibited a net benefit over PSAD and Proclarix in the overall population. Proclarix outperformed PSAD and MRI-ERSPC RC in PI-RADS ≤ 3. PSAD outperformed MRI-ESRPC RC and Proclarix in PI-RADS > 3, although none of them exhibited 100% sensitivity for csPCa in this setting. Therefore, tools to properly select candidates for prostate biopsy after MRI must be analyzed regarding the PI-RADS categories. While MRI-ERSPC RC outperformed PSAD and Proclarix in the overall population, Proclarix outperformed in PI-RADS ≤ 3, and no tool guaranteed 100% detection of csPCa in PI-RADS 4 and 5.
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.