Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38614971›Full record

ArticleBMC urology2024

A novel biopsy scheme for prostate cancer: targeted and regional systematic biopsy.

Yang He, Yu Fan, Haitian Song, Qi Shen, Mingjian Ruan, Yuke Chen, Derun Li, Xueying Li, Yi Liu, Kai Zhang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 91% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Yang He *Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Yu Fan *Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Haitian SongDepartment of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Qi ShenDepartment of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Mingjian RuanDepartment of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Yuke ChenDepartment of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Derun LiDepartment of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Xueying LiDepartment of Statistics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yi LiuDepartment of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China. liuyipkuhsc@163.com.
Kai ZhangDepartment of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China. kaizhangpku@163.com.
Qian ZhangDepartment of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Peking University · CN

Funding

National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (Interdepartmental Research Project of Peking University First Hospital) 2022CR16National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (Interdepartmental Research Project of Peking University First Hospital), 2023IR27
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore a novel biopsy scheme for prostate cancer (PCa), and test the detection rate and pathological agreement of standard systematic (SB) + targeted (TB) biopsy and novel biopsy scheme.

methodsPositive needles were collected from 194 patients who underwent SB + TB (STB) followed by radical prostatectomy (RP). Our novel biopsy scheme, targeted and regional systematic biopsy (TrSB) was defined as TB + regional SB (4 SB-needles closest to the TB-needles). The McNemar test was utilized to compare the detection rate performance for clinical significant PCa (csPCa) and clinical insignificant PCa (ciPCa). Moreover, the accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were investigated. The agreement between the different biopsy schemes grade group (GG) and RP GG were assessed. The concordance between the biopsy and the RP GG was evaluated using weighted κ coefficient analyses.

resultsIn this study, the overall detection rate for csPCa was 83.5% (162 of 194) when SB and TB were combined. TrSB showed better NPV than TB (97.0% vs. 74.4%). Comparing to STB, the TB-detection rate of csPCa had a significant difference (p < 0.01), while TrSB showed no significant difference (p > 0.999). For ciPCa, the overall detection rate was 16.5% (32 of 194). TrSB showed better PPV (96.6% vs. 83.3%) and NPV (97.6% vs. 92.9%) than TB. Comparing to STB, the detection rate of both schemes showed no significant difference (p = 0.077 and p = 0.375). All three schemes GG showed poor agreement with RP GG (TB: 43.3%, TrSB: 46.4%, STB: 45.9%). Using weighted κ, all three schemes showed no difference (TB: 0.48, TrSB: 0.51, STB: 0.51). In our subgroup analysis (PI-RADS = 4/5, n = 154), all three schemes almost showed no difference (Weighted κ: TB-0.50, TrSB-0.51, STB-0.50).

conclusionOur novel biopsy scheme TrSB (TB + 4 closest SB needles) may reduce 8 cores of biopsy compared with STB (standard SB + TB), which also showed better csPCa detection rate than TB only, but the same as STB. The pathological agreement between three different biopsy schemes (TB/TrSB/STB) GG and RP GG showed no difference.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsBiopsyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeedlesProstatectomyBiopsy schemeProstate cancerRadical prostatectomyRegional systematic biopsyTargeted biopsy

Identifiers

PMID38614971
PMCPMC11015685
OpenAlexW4394785060

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.