Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37755520›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2023

The impact of a second MRI and re-biopsy in patients with initial negative mpMRI-targeted and systematic biopsy for PIRADS ≥ 3 lesions.

Fabio Zattoni, Leonor J Paulino Pereira, Giancarlo Marra, Massimo Valerio, Jonathan Olivier, Ignacio Puche-Sanz, Pawel Rajwa, Martina Maggi, Riccardo Campi, Daniele Amparore and 19 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

29 authors.

Fabio ZattoniUrologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy. fabio.zattoni@unipd.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4178-373X
Leonor J Paulino PereiraDepartment of Urology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht-Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Giancarlo MarraDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Massimo ValerioDepartment of Urology, Geneva University Hospital, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jonathan OlivierDepartment of Urology, Lille University, Lille, France.
Ignacio Puche-SanzDepartment of Urology, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria Ibs.Granada, Hospital Universitario Virgen de Las Nieves (HUVN), Granada, Spain.
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Martina MaggiDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Riccardo CampiUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Daniele AmparoreSchool of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Italy.
Sabrina De CillisSchool of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Italy.
Zhuang JunlongInstitute of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Hongqian GuoInstitute of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Giulia La BombardaUrologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Andrea FuschiDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro VecciaDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Francesco DitonnoDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Alessandro MarquisDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Francesco BarlettaDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Riccardo LeniDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Sergio SerniUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Veeru KasivisvanathanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, UCL, London, UK.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Fabrizio Dal MoroUrologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Juan Gomez RivasDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht-Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Alberto BrigantiDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Giorgio GandagliaDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Giacomo NovaraUrologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the proportions of detected prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa), as well as identify clinical predictors of PCa, in patients with PI-RADS >  = 3 lesion at mpMRI and initial negative targeted and systematic biopsy (initial biopsy) who underwent a second MRI and a re-biopsy.

methodsA total of 290 patients from 10 tertiary referral centers were included. The primary outcome measures were the presence of PCa and csPCa at re-biopsy. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of PCa and csPCa, adjusting for relevant covariates.

resultsForty-two percentage of patients exhibited the presence of a new lesion. Furthermore, at the second MRI, patients showed stable, upgrading, and downgrading PI-RADS lesions in 42%, 39%, and 19%, respectively. The interval from the initial to repeated mpMRI and from the initial to repeated biopsy was 16 mo (IQR 12-20) and 18 mo (IQR 12-21), respectively. One hundred and eight patients (37.2%) were diagnosed with PCa and 74 (25.5%) with csPCa at re-biopsy. The presence of ASAP on the initial biopsy strongly predicted the presence of PCa and csPCa at re-biopsy. Furthermore, PI-RADS scores at the first and second MRI and a higher number of systematic biopsy cores at first and second biopsy were independent predictors of the presence of PCa and csPCa. Selection bias cannot be ruled out.

conclusionsPersistent PI-RADS ≥ 3 at the second MRI is suggestive of the presence of a not negligible proportion of csPca. These findings contribute to the refinement of risk stratification for men with initial negative MRI-TBx.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleRetrospective StudiesTertiary Care CentersDiagnosis prostate MRINegative biopsyProstate cancerTargeted biopsyTarget prostate biopsy

Identifiers

PMID37755520
PMCPMC10632220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.