Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36197141›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of urology2022

Pathological Accuracy in Prostate Cancer: Single-Center Outcomes of 3 Different Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Techniques and Random Systematic Biopsy.

Mert Kılıç, Ömer Acar, Metin Vural, Bülent Çolakoğlu, Barbaros Erhan Çil, Ersin Köseoğlu, Dilek Ertoy Baydar, Abdullah Erdem Canda, Yakup Kordan, Mevlana Derya Balbay and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Mert KılıçDepartment of Urology, VKF American Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.
Ömer AcarDepartment of Urology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.
Metin VuralDepartment of Radiology, VKF American Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.
Bülent ÇolakoğluDepartment of Radiology, VKF American Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.
Barbaros Erhan ÇilDepartment of Radiology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.
Ersin KöseoğluDepartment of Urology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.
Dilek Ertoy BaydarDepartment of Pathology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abdullah Erdem CandaDepartment of Urology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.
Yakup KordanDepartment of Urology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.
Mevlana Derya BalbayDepartment of Urology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.
Tarık EsenDepartment of Urology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study is to compare systematic, cognitive fusion, in-bore, and software fusion prostate biopsies regarding rates of and risk factors for pathological upgrading. MATERIAL AND

methodsCharts of 291 patients with systematic biopsy (n = 105), magnetic resonance imaging- targeted cognitive fusion (n = 58), in-bore (n = 68), and software fusion biopsy (n = 60), and who subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy were retrospectively evaluated. The degree of similarity between the grade groups reported in the biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology results was recorded. Analyses of the associated factors for concordance and discordance were performed with univariate and multivariate methods.

resultsThe concordance rates were as follows: systematic biopsy = 42.8%, cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy = 50%, in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy = 61.8, and software fusion biopsy = 58.4%. The upgrade rate of systematic biopsy (46.6%) was higher than cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy (27.6%), in-bore fusiontargeted biopsy (26.4%), and software fusion-targeted biopsy (18.3%). The number of positive cores was significantly associated with grade group concordance for the systematic biopsy group (P = .040). Within the cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy cohort, number of positive cores was the only parameter that exhibited a significant association with grade group concordance in multivariate analysis (P = .044). Considering the in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy group, maximum tumor length was statistically significant (P = .021). In the software fusion-targeted biopsy group, low prostate volume was found to be the only significant predictor for grade group accordance (P = .021).

conclusionMagnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy techniques showed higher concordance and lower upgrade rates compared to systematic biopsy. For systematic biopsy and cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy, the number of positive cores was associated with grade group concordance, while maximum tumor length in in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy and low prostate volume for in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy were associated with grade group concordance. Among the MRI-targeted biopsy methods, in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy and software fusion-targeted biopsy were more accurate than cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy in terms of grade group.

Identifiers

PMID36197141
PMCPMC9623377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.