ArticleUrology research & practice2023
Do Concomitant Systematic Biopsies Add to Fusion Targeted Biopsies in the Diagnosis and Management of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?
Article in Urology research & practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are template prostate biopsies still required in patients with high-risk PI-RADS lesions? A retrospective study of 470 patients.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMagnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy clearly detects more clinically significant prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. Whether concomitant systematic biopsy adds to targeted biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer remains uncertain. The primary outcome measure of this study was to ascertain the percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer on systematic biopsy missed by targeted biopsy. Furthermore, we sought to determine whether systematic biopsy results influenced the clinical management of patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective observational study included all men undergoing Fusion targeted biopsy in our Health Board. All men had PI-RADS scores of 3-5 on magnetic resonance imaging. Histology from targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy was reviewed to determine any additional benefit of performing systematic biopsy. Clinical outcomes were also reviewed. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined by (i) International Society of Urological Pathology ≥ 2 and (ii) UCL criteria of any primary Gleason 4 or core length ≥ 6 mm.
resultsA total of 104 men were included in the study of whom 18 patients were biopsy naïve, 65 had at least 1 previous negative biopsy, and 20 had previous biopsies that showed clinically insignificant cancer. The percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer missed on targeted biopsy was between 9.1% and 11.1%. Moreover, 17.1% of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer would not have proceeded to radical treatment if the systematic biopsy had not been performed.
conclusionOur data support a growing field of evidence that although magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy is more sensitive than systematic biopsy at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, systematic biopsy adds to the number of patients diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer in those already undergoing prostate biopsy.
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.