ArticleBJUI compass2022
Reducing prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging with prostate cancer risk stratification.
Article in BJUI compass, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07422597 (PRORAND - Prostate Risk or Radiology Assessment Non-inferiority Design, a Comparison of Upfront MRI vs Risk Calculator in Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
PRORAND - Prostate Risk or Radiology Assessment Non-inferiority Design, a Comparison of Upfront MRI vs Risk Calculator in Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Predictive clinical characteristics for adverse pathological outcomes in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer during biopsy.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Role of prostate health index (PHI) in prostate cancer screening: cost minimization analysis through simulation modelling.World journal of urology · 2025Observational
- Personalised Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Evaluating Biomarker-based Approaches to Reduce Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biopsy Procedures.European urology open science · 2025Review
- Incorporating PHI in decision making: external validation of the Rotterdam risk calculators for detection of prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Risk Calculators to Predict Prostate Cancer Risk.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- The Capio Prostate Cancer Center Model for Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Real-world Evidence from 2018 to 2022.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Article
- Shining a little light on peer review debates.BJUI compass · 2022Article
- Reducing prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging with prostate cancer risk stratification.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To recalibrate and validate the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators (ERSPC RCs) 3/4 and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ERSPC-RCs to a contemporary Norwegian setting to reduce upfront prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and prostate biopsies. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified and entered all men who underwent prostate mpMRI and subsequent prostate biopsy between January 2016 and March 2017 in a Norwegian centre into a database. mpMRI was reported using PI-RADS v2.0 and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥ 3 + 4. Probabilities of csPCa and any prostate cancer (PCa) on biopsy were calculated by the ERSPC RCs 3/4 and the MRI-ERSPC-RC and compared with biopsy results. RCs were then recalibrated to account for differences in prevalence between the development and current cohorts (if indicated), and calibration, discrimination and clinical usefulness assessed. Results: Three hundred and three patients were included. The MRI-ERSPC-RCs were perfectly calibrated to our cohort, although the ERSPC RCs 3/4 needed recalibration. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the ERSPC RCs 3/4 was 0.82 for the discrimination of csPCa and 0.77 for any PCa. The AUC for the MRI-ERSPC-RCs was 0.89 for csPCa and 0.85 for any PCa. Decision curve analysis showed clear net benefit for both the ERSPC RCs 3/4 (>2% risk of csPCa threshold to biopsy) and for the MRI-ERSPC-RCs (>1% risk of csPCa threshold), with a greater net benefit for the MRI-RCs. Using a >10% risk of csPCa or 20% risk of any PCa threshold for the ERSPC RCs 3/4, 15.5% of mpMRIs could be omitted, missing 0.8% of csPCa. Using the MRI-ERSPC-RCs, 23.4% of biopsies could be omitted with the same threshold, missing 0.8% of csPCa. Conclusion: The ERSPC RCs 3/4 and MRI-ERSPC-RCs can considerably reduce both upfront mpMRI and prostate biopsies with little risk of missing csPCa.
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.