Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36938557›Full record

ArticleActa clinica Croatica2022

COMPARISON OF GRADING ACCURACY OF PROSTATE CANCER IN SAMPLES ACQUIRED BY A TARGETED AND SYSTEMIC PROSTATE BIOPSY.

Ivan Pezelj, Matea Pirša, Ivan Svaguša, Sven Nikles, Miroslav Tomić, Matej Knežević, Igor Tomašković, Božo Krušlin

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta clinica Croatica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ivan PezeljDepartment of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center.
Matea PiršaDepartment of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center.
Ivan SvagušaDepartment of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center.
Sven NiklesDepartment of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center.
Miroslav TomićDepartment of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center.
Matej KneževićDepartment of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center.
Igor TomaškovićDepartment of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center.
Božo KrušlinLjudevit Jurak Clinical Department of Pathology and Cytology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center.
Sisters of Charity Hospital · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: All malignancies, including prostate cancer, require accurate diagnosing and staging before making a treatment decision. The introduction of targeted biopsies based on prostate MRI findings has raised prostate biopsy accuracy. Guided biopsies target the tumor itself during the biopsy instead of the most common tumor sites as is the case with a systemic biopsy. Some studies report that targeted biopsies should lower prostate cancer biopsy undergrading and overgrading. Goals: To determine the incidence of prostate cancer biopsy undergrading in patients who underwent a classic systemic biopsy compared to patients who underwent a mpMRI cognitive targeted biopsy. Materials and methods: We identified the patients from our database who underwent a radical prostatectomy at our institution from January 1st, 2021, to June 30th, 2021.There were 112 patients identified. Patients were stratified into two groups based on the type of biopsy that confirmed prostate cancer. The mpMRI (N=50) group had a mpMRI cognitive guided transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) prostate biopsy performed, and the non-mpMRI group (N=62) received a classic, systemic TRUS biopsy. We compared the biopsy results with the final pathological results, and searched for undergrading or overgrading in the biopsies compared to the final histological report. Results: The undergrading was found in 17,7% (N=11) cases in the non-mpMRI group and in 12,0% (N=6) of cases in the mpMRI group (p=0,02, Mann-Whitney U test). No overgrading was found in our cohort. All cases of undergrading had Grade Group 1 in the biopsy report and Grade Group 2 in the final specimen report. The charasteristics of patients are listed in Table 1. Discussion and conclusion: In our cohort, the patients who underwent a mpMRI targeted biopsy had a lower undergrading incidence. During a systemic TRUS biopsy, the urologist targets the areas of the prostate where cancer is most commonly located, which is usually the peripheral zone of the prostate. Since different areas of the tumor have different areas of differentiation, only a low-grade part of the tumor is sometimes biopsied, which results in a sampling error. Once the prostate is removed, the whole tumor is analyzed, so the obtained pathological results related to the removed prostate are far more accurate than the analysis of prostate cores obtained by biopsy.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeoplasm GradingProstatectomyovergradingprostate biopsyProstate cancerprostate MRIundegrading

Identifiers

PMID36938557
PMCPMC10022403
OpenAlexW4327901984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.