Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36509930›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2023

Optimizing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: the role of perilesional sampling.

Jean-Paul Noujeim, Yassir Belahsen, Yolene Lefebvre, Marc Lemort, Maxime Deforche, Nicolas Sirtaine, Robin Martin, Thierry Roumeguère, Alexandre Peltier, Romain Diamand

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The value of [Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Biopsy strategies in the era of mpMRI: a comprehensive review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Jean-Paul Noujeim *Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1699-9413
Yassir Belahsen *Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Yolene LefebvreDepartment of Radiology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Marc LemortDepartment of Radiology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Maxime DeforcheDepartment of Radiology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Nicolas SirtaineDepartment of Pathology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Robin MartinDepartment of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Thierry RoumeguèreDepartment of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5377-8137
Alexandre PeltierDepartment of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Romain DiamandDepartment of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. romain.diamand@bordet.be.ORCID 0000-0002-2016-8543

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe added-value of systematic biopsy (SB) in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TB) remains unclear and the spatial distribution of positive cores relative to the MRI lesion has been poorly studied. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of perilesional biopsy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

methodsWe enrolled 505 consecutive patients that underwent SB and TB for suspicious MRI lesions (PI-RADS score 3-5) at Jules Bordet Institute between June 2016 and January 2022. Patient-specific tridimensional prostate maps were reviewed to determine the distance between systematic cores containing csPCa and the MRI index lesion. Primary outcomes were the cancer detection rate (CDR) per patient and the cumulative cancer distribution rate of positive cores for each 5 mm interval from the MRI index lesion. The secondary outcome was the identification of risk groups for the presence of csPCa beyond a 10 mm margin using the chi-square automated interaction detector (CHAID) machine learning algorithm.

resultsOverall, the CDR for csPCa of TB, SB, and combined method were 32%, 25%, and 37%, respectively. While combined method detected more csPCa compared to TB (37% vs. 32%, p < 0.001), no difference was found when TB was associated with perilesional sampling within 10 mm (37% vs. 35%, p = 0.2). The cumulative cancer distribution rate for csPCa reached 86% for the 10 mm margin. The CHAID algorithm identified three risk groups: (1) PI-RADS3 ("low-risk"), (2) PI-RADS4 or PI-RADS5 and PSA density <0.15 ng/ml ("intermediate-risk"), and (3) PI-RADS 5 and PSA density ≥0.15 ng/ml ("high-risk"). The risk of missing csPCa was 2%, 8%, and 29% for low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups, respectively. Avoiding biopsies beyond a 10 mm margin prevented the detection of 19% of non-csPCa.

conclusionsPerilesional biopsy template using a 10 mm margin seems a reasonable alternative to the combined method with a comparable detection of csPCa. Our risk stratification may further enhance the selection of patients.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProspective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.