ArticleScientific reports2023
Transperineal vs transrectal magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion prostate biopsy: a pair-matched comparison.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Residents and Consultants Have Equal Outcomes When Performing Transrectal Fusion Biopsies: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Trial
- Superior cancer detection with transperineal biopsy in patients with an elevated prostate-specific antigen level and a PI-RADS score of 3-4: A retrospective cohort study.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Impact of a new diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer-from systematic transrectal to targeted MRI fusion transperineal biopsies.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Is MRI/US-guided fusion biopsy ready to replace systematic biopsy in detecting clinically significant prostate carcinoma? - a retrospective study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Utility of prostate-specific antigen derivatives to minimize unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prior negative prostate biopsy.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Across Settings With and Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeting.European urology open science · 2026Review
- Transperineal 3T MRI-guided and transrectal MRI-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsies: Do lesion location and size impact diagnostic yield?Urologic oncology · 2026Article
- Personalized prostate biopsy protocols: enhancing cancer detection through tailored approaches-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Review
- Efficacy of Prostate Biopsies via Transperineal and Transrectal Routes for Significant Prostate Cancer Detection: A Multicenter Paired-Matched Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Targeted biopsy of the prostate.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Review
- A sustainable and expedited 'One-Stop' prostate cancer diagnostic pathway to reduce environmental impact and enhance accessibility.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Transrectal versus transperineal prostate fusion biopsy: a pair-matched analysis to evaluate accuracy and complications.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Cognitive Targeted Prostate Biopsy Alone for Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Selected Biopsy-Naïve Patients: Results from a Retrospective Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Pain Perception During Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy Under Local An-esthesia: a Prospective Analysis of a Multi-ethnic and Diverse Cohort.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Transperineal versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy in a large, ethnically diverse, and multiracial cohort.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (PBx). Consecutive men who underwent prostate MRI followed by a systematic biopsy. Additional target biopsies were performed from Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PIRADS) 3-5 lesions. Men who underwent TP PBx were matched 1:2 with a synchronous cohort undergoing TR PBx by PSA, Prostate volume (PV) and PIRADS score. Endpoint of the study was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group ≥ 2). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05. Overall, 504 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 168 TP PBx were pair-matched to 336 TR PBx patients. Baseline demographics and imaging characteristics were similar between the groups. Per patient, the CSPCa detection was 2.1% vs 6.3% (p = 0.4) for PIRADS 1-2, and 59% vs 60% (p = 0.9) for PIRADS 3-5, on TP vs TR PBx, respectively. Per lesion, the CSPCa detection for PIRADS 3 (21% vs 16%; p = 0.4), PIRADS 4 (51% vs 44%; p = 0.8) and PIRADS 5 (76% vs 84%; p = 0.3) was similar for TP vs TR PBx, respectively. However, the TP PBx showed a longer maximum cancer core length (11 vs 9 mm; p = 0.02) and higher cancer core involvement (83% vs 65%; p < 0.001) than TR PBx. Independent predictors for CSPCa detection were age, PSA, PV, abnormal digital rectal examination findings, and PIRADS 3-5. Our study demonstrated transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion PBx provides similar CSPCa detection, with larger prostate cancer core length and percent of core involvement, than transrectal PBx.
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.