ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2023
Prostate cancer risk stratification using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion vs systematic prostate biopsy.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 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.
- Detection of benign granular cell tumor of the breast viaSAGE open medical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImage-guided approaches improve the diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy and frequently modify estimates of clinical risk. To better understand the impact of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) on risk assessment, we compared the distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groupings, as calculated from MRF-TB vs systematic biopsy alone.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 713 patients who underwent MRF-TB from January 2017 to July 2021. The primary study objective was to compare the distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groupings obtained using MRF-TB (systematic + targeted) vs systematic biopsy.
resultsSystematic biopsy alone classified 10% of samples as very low risk and 18.7% of samples as low risk, while MRF-TB classified 10.5% of samples as very low risk and 16.1% of samples as low risk. Among patients with benign findings, low-risk disease, and favorable/intermediate-risk disease on systematic biopsy alone, 4.6% of biopsies were reclassified as high risk or very high risk on MRF-TB. Of 207 patients choosing active surveillance, 64 (31%), 91 (44%), 42 (20.2%), and 10 (4.8%) patients were classified as having very low-risk, low-risk, and favorable/intermediate-risk and unfavorable/intermediate-risk criteria, respectively. When using systematic biopsy alone, 204 patients (28.7%) were classified as having either very low-risk and low-risk disease per NCCN guidelines, while 190 men (26.6%) received this classification when using MRF-TB.
conclusionThe addition of MRF-TB to systematic biopsy may change eligibility for active surveillance in only a small proportion of patients with prostate cancer. Our findings support the need for routine use of quantitative risk assessment over risk groupings to promote more nuanced decision making for localized cancer.
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.