ArticleBJUI compass2023
Performance of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging validated by targeted and systematic transperineal biopsies.
Article in BJUI compass, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating Multiparametric MRI and PSMA PET Imaging in Prostate Cancer: Toward a Unified Diagnostic and Risk-Stratification Paradigm.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Advances in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with biomarkers for the diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
- Performance of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging validated by targeted and systematic transperineal biopsies.BJUI compass · 2023Article
- Freehand transperineal prostate biopsy with a coaxial needle under local anesthesia: Experience from a single institution in Malaysia.Cancer pathogenesis and therapy · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To measure the performance of multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to identify intraprostatic tumour deposits using a systematic and targeted MR-guided transperineal prostate biopsy technique. Materials and Methods: Patients underwent a combined systematic and targeted MR-guided transperineal biopsy procedure in the dorsal lithotomy position under general anaesthesia. Systematic biopsies were spaced 10 mm or less apart and additional biopsies targeted any Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3, 4 or 5 lesions identified on mpMRI. Cancer detection rates were calculated on a per patient and per lesion basis. Results: A total of 125 patients underwent the biopsy procedure. The positive predictive value (PPV) of mpMRI per patient was 59% for any cancer and 49% for Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7 cancer. The negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI per patient was 67% for any cancer and 88% for GS ≥ 7 cancer. On a per lesion basis, the PPV of PI-RADS 3 lesions for any and GS ≥ 7 cancer was 24% and 10%. For PI-RADS 4 lesions it was 42% and 32%. For PI-RADS 5 lesions, it was 76% and 70%. MpMRI failed to identify GS ≥ 7 cancer found on systematic biopsy in 22% of patients. Conclusion: Based on a combination of systematic and targeted transperineal prostate biopsies, mpMRI showed a high NPV and low PPV for GS ≥ 7 cancer on a per patient basis. The PPV of mpMRI on a per lesion basis increased with increasing PI-RADS score. However, there were a significant number of both false positive as well as false negative (mpMRI invisible) areas within the prostate that contained GS ≥ 7 cancer. Therefore, pathologic confirmation using both targeted and systematic mapping biopsy is necessary to accurately identify all intraprostatic tumour deposits.
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.