ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Diagnostic performance of transperineal prostate targeted biopsy alone according to the PI-RADS score based on bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of transperineal targeted biopsy (TB) or systematic biopsy (SB) alone based on combined TB+SB and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) according to the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score. Materials and methods: This study included 1077 men who underwent transperineal bi-parametric (bp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion TB+SB (bpMRI-US FTSB) between April 2019 and March 2022. To compare the performance of each modality (TB, SB, and combined TB+SB) with the RP specimen (as the standard) for detecting PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted. Results: PCa was detected in 581 of 1077 men (53.9%) using bpMRI-US FTSB. CsPCa was detected in 383 of 1077 men (35.6%), 17 of 285 (6.0%) with PI-RADS 0 to 2, 35 of 277 (12.6%) with PI-RADS 3, 134 of 274 (48.9%) with PI-RADS 4, and 197 of 241 (81.7%) with PI-RADS 5, respectively. The additional diagnostic value of TB vs. SB compared to combined TB+SB for diagnosing csPCa were 4.3% vs. 3.2% (p=0.844), 20.4% vs 5.1% (p<0.001), and 20.3% vs. 0.7% (p<0.001) with PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, respectively. TB alone showed no significant difference in diagnostic performance for csPCa with combined TB+SB based on RP specimens in patients with PI-RADS 5 (p=0.732). Conclusion: A need for addition of SB to TB in patients with PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions, however, TB alone may be performed without affecting the management of patients with PI-RADS 5.
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.