ArticleArab journal of urology2023
Can a prostate biopsy be safely deferred on PI-RADS 1,2 or 3 lesions seen on pre-biopsy mp-MRI?
Article in Arab journal of urology, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of quantitative measurement of TScientific reports · 2024Article
- Negative magnetic resonance imaging cannot be used to omit an initial prostate biopsy - An ambispective study.Prostate international · 2024Article
- Development of novel nomograms for predicting prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with PSA < 10 ng/ml and PI-RADS ≤ 3 lesions.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- New insights into molecular signaling pathways and current advancements in prostate cancer diagnostics & therapeutics.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) is currently used to triage patients with suspected prostate cancer, before deciding on prostate biopsies. In our study, we evaluated normal and equivocal pre-biopsy mp-MRIs to see whether it is safe to avoid biopsy with such findings. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at a district general hospital in the UK between August 2017 and July 2018. Patients with negative and equivocal prebiopsy mp-MRI with high clinical suspicion of cancer had proceeded to biopsy. MRI reports with prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scores 1, 2, 3 and normal MRI were evaluated against the transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PB) outcomes to demonstrate benign pathology, clinically insignificant or clinically significant cancer (csCa). CsCa was defined as Gleason score (GS) ≥3 + 4. Results: Out of 265 mp-MRIs studied, five (1.9%) were PI-RADS 1, 109 (41.1%) and 84 (31.7%) were PI-RADS 2 and 3 lesions respectively; 67 (25.3%) were reported as normal. Seventy-five (27.3%) patients did not have biopsies following their MRI and 73.3% (51/75) of them had benign feeling prostate. Negative MRIs (PI-RADS 1, 2 and normal MRI) showed 8.8% and PI-RADS 3 lesions demonstrated 11.9% csCa. Negative predictive value for normal MRI was 91.2%. Mean PSA density (PSAD) among the benign, GS 3 + 3 and csCa was 0.14, 0.16 and 0.27 ng/ml/ml respectively and this was statistically significant ( Conclusion: Avoiding TRUS-PB following normal or equivocal mp-MRI should carefully be decided as 18.5% of cancer was demonstrated in this group and 9.8% of those who were diagnosed with cancer were csCa. PSAD and DRE findings provide additional information to help with this decision.
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.