ArticleCancers2022
Individualized Decision Making in Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: Should All Men Undergo an Additional Systematic Biopsy?
Article in Cancers, 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining biopsy strategies stratified by PI-RADS score in men: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- [Diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer using targeted biopsy with 6-core systematic biopsy for patients with PI-RADS 5].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis, additional systematic biopsy (SB) is recommended to complement MRI-targeted biopsy (TB) to address the limited sensitivity of TB alone. The combination of TB+SB is beneficial for diagnosing additional significant PC (sPC) but harmful in terms of the additional diagnosis of indolent PC (iPC), morbidity, and resource expenditures. We aimed to investigate the benefit of additional SB and to identify predictors for this outcome. Methods: We analyzed the frequency of upgrading to sPC by additional SB in a retrospective single-center cohort of 1043 men. Regression analysis (RA) was performed to identify predictors for this outcome. Reclassification rates of ISUP grade groups between prostate biopsy and a subsequent radical prostatectomy were assessed. Results: Additional SB led to upgrading to sPC in 98/1043 men (9.4%) and to the additional diagnosis of iPC in 71/1043 (6.8%). In RA, men harboring a PI-RADS 2-4 lesion were more likely to have TB results upgraded by SB (p < 0.01) compared to PI-RADS 5 men. When analyzing reclassification rates, additional SB reduced the upgrading to sPC from 43/214 (20.1%) to 8/214 (3.7%). In the PI-RADS 5 subgroup, this difference decreased: 4/87 (4.7%) with TB only vs. 1/87 (1.2%) with TB+SB. Conclusion: Men with a PI-RADS 5 lesion may obviate additional SB.
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.