Trial reportUrology2024
A Phase II Prospective Blinded Trial of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and In-Bore Biopsy in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.
Trial report in Urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo demonstrate the added benefit of multiparametric (mp)MRI risk stratification during active surveillance.
methodsThis prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized study included 82 men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We compared two biopsy strategies in parallel. The first biopsy strategy was an in-bore and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy in men with suspicious mpMRI findings. The second was a TRUS biopsy in all 82 men, blinded to the results of the previously performed mpMRI.
resultsWe identified 27/82 men with suspicious mpMRI. Of those 27 men, we detected 8/27 with csPCa on biopsy, and we identified two men with in-bore biopsy exclusively, three men with TRUS biopsy exclusively, and three men with both biopsy strategies. Of the 55/82 men with nonsuspicious mpMRI (who only received TRUS biopsies), two men had csPCa. TRUS biopsy of the entire cohort of 82 men would have led to the correct diagnosis of 80% men with csPCa, requiring all 82 men to receive biopsies (csPCa in 10% of the 82 biopsies). Conducting in-bore biopsies plus TRUS biopsies in men with suspicious mpMRI would have also led to the detection of 80% of men with csPCa, requiring only 27 men to receive biopsies (csPCa in 30% of the 27 biopsies).
conclusionThe combination of TRUS and in-bore biopsies, limited to men with suspicious mpMRI, resulted in a similar detection rate of csPCa compared to TRUS biopsies of all men but required only one-third of men to undergo biopsy. Our results indicate that in-bore and TRUS biopsies continue to complement each other.
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.