SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025
Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06517901 (MRI-targeted Fusion or Cognitive Ultrasound-guided Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 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.
MRI-targeted Fusion or Cognitive Ultrasound-guided Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Triple Clinical Filter Model for Selective Omission of Systematic Cores in Transperineal Cognitive Prostate Biopsy: A Retrospective Observational Study.The Prostate · 2026Observational
- Successes and challenges in developing a magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound machine fusion prostate biopsy service.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Review
- Comment on "Comparison of MRI-guided in-bore and fusion biopsy for small PI-RADS 4 prostate lesions".World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Comparison of MRI-guided in-bore and fusion biopsy for small PI-RADS 4 prostate lesions.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Comparison of software vs. cognitive-based fusion-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Transgluteal MRI in-bore prostate biopsy in routine clinical practice: a contemporary-cohort-study from a german tertiary center.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- A rapid urinary test for combining PSA and zinc to enhance prostate cancer diagnosis: results from a prospective study.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- Risk stratification for repeat prostate biopsy: PI-RADS 3 lesions and the differential role of PSA density.Prostate international · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Perineal MRI-US Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Single-Center Prospective Cohort Analysis.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Software mpMR/US fusion, cognitive, and in-bore biopsy: a comparative analysis of prostate cancer detection.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Label-free fluorescence lifetime imaging for rapid discrimination of high-grade prostate cancer in fresh biopsy cores: a feasibility study.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Optimizing Prostate Biopsy Pathways: Integrating MRI-Targeted, Systematic Sampling, and Clinical Judgment in the PSA-Era.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Association of Prostate Multiparametric MRI Parameters with Gleason Score: A Fusion Biopsy-Based CorrelationCurrent medical imaging · 2026Article
- Accuracy of cognitive vs software-guided MRI-targeted biopsy in predicting final grading at prostatectomy.BJU international · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Superiority of Transperineal Combined Fusion Biopsy Versus Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy: Lower Upgrading Rates and Better Concordance with Post-Surgical Histopathology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Transperineal Free-Hand Prostate Fusion Biopsy with AI-Driven Auto-Contouring: First Results of a Prospective Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- Enhancing Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Comparative Analysis of Combined Fusion and Systematic Biopsy Methods-A Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advances in imaging and artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis and biopsy guidance in prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree primary strategies for MRI-targeted biopsies (TB) are available: Cognitive TB (COG-TB), MRI-US Fusion TB (FUS-TB), and In Bore TB (IB-TB). Despite nearly a decade of practice, a consensus on the preferred approach is lacking, with previous studies showing comparable PCa detection rates among the three methods.
methodsWe conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2014 to 2023, to identify studies comparing at least two of the three methods and reporting clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection rates. The primary and secondary outcomes were to compare the csPCa and insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa, ISUP GG 1) detection rates between TB techniques. The tertiary outcome was to compare the complication rate between TB techniques. Detection rates were pooled using random-effect models. Planned sensitivity analyses included subgroup analysis according to the definition of csPCa and positive MRI, previous biopsy status, biopsy route, prostate volume, and lesion characteristics.
resultsA total of twenty studies, involving 4928 patients, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis unveiled comparable csPCa detection rates among COG-TB (0.37), FUS-TB (0.39), and IB-TB (0.47). iPCa detection rate was also similar between TB techniques (COG-TB: 0.12, FUS-TB: 0.17, IB-TB: 0.18). All preplanned sensitivity analyses were conducted and did not show any statistically significant difference in the detection of csPCa between TB methods. Complication rates, however, were infrequently reported, and when available, no statistically significant differences were observed among the techniques.
conclusionsThis unique study, exclusively focusing on comparative research, indicates no significant differences in csPCa and iPCa detection rates between COG-TB, FUS-TB, and IB-TB. Decisions between these techniques may extend beyond diagnostic accuracy, considering factors such as resource availability and operator preferences. Well-designed prospective studies are warranted to refine our understanding of the optimal approach for TB in diverse clinical scenarios.
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.