ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2022
Evaluation of systematic prostate biopsies when performing transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy with needle tracking-what is the additional value?
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of unilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- MRI-Targeted Prostate Fusion Biopsy: What Are We Missing outside the Target? Implications for Treatment Planning.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Discrepancy in the Location of Prostate Cancer Indicated on Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Pathologically Diagnosed Using Surgical Specimens.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Ipsilateral hemigland prostate biopsy may underestimate cancer burden in patients with unilateral mpMRI-visible lesions.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Is there still a role for systematic biopsy after targeted biopsy for the detection of clini-cally significant prostate cancer in MRI suspicious lesions?International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the additional value of systematic biopsies (SB) when performing transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies (MRI/TRUS TPBx) with needle tracking.
methodsFrom January 2019 to March 2021 969 Patients after a MRI/TRUS TPBx were evaluated separately for target biopsies (TB) and systematic biopsies regarding PCa detection and PCa risk evaluation. Needle tracking in the axial sequences of multiparametric MRI was used to assess the localisation of the detected PCa in the biopsy cores related to the reported PI-RADS lesions.
resultsThe overall cancer detection rate (CDR) for PCa and clinically significant (cs) PCa (ISUP ≥2) with the combination of TB and SB were 66 and 49%. TB detected 46% csPCa and SB 22% csPCa. SB identified 1.5% additional csPCa outside of the reported PI-RADS lesions. 16 patients (1.7%) showed a relevant upgrading from clinically insignificant PCa in TB to csPCa. In 736 patients with unilateral suspicious lesions on MRI, 145 patients (20%) were detected with contralateral PCa-positive SB. 238 patients (25%) showed PCa positive systematic biopsy cores outside of the described PI-RADS lesions.
conclusionsNeedle tracking optimizes the 3D-localisation of cancer in the prostate. Our results show that the added value of SB with a reduced systematic biopsy scheme is low with regard to prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa risk evaluation. However, there is a relevant added value for localizing multifocal PCa in the primary diagnostic by a MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy of the prostate.
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.