ArticleAsian journal of andrology2024
Value of cognitive fusion targeted and standard systematic transrectal prostate biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis.
Article in Asian journal of andrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transperineal cognitive fusion MRI-targeted biopsy shows higher detection rates than systematic biopsy in prostate cancer: a prospective cohort study.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of unilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractThe aim of this study was to compare the accuracies of cognitive fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB), systematic biopsy (SB), and combined TB+SB for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in males with lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We conducted a retrospective analysis of individuals who underwent prostate biopsy at Peking University People's Hospital (Beijing, China), with an emphasis on patients with both transrectal TB and SB. The main objective was to determine the precisions of SB, TB, and TB+SB for diagnosing PCa and csPCa. We also evaluated the detection rates of TB, SB, TB+ipsilateral-SB (ipsi-SB), TB+contralateral-SB (contra-SB), and TB+SB for PCa and csPCa in patients with unilateral MRI lesions. We compared the diagnostic yields of the various biopsy schemes using the McNemar's test. A total of 180 patients were enrolled. The rates of PCa detection using TB, SB, and TB+SB were 52.8%, 62.2%, and 66.7%, respectively, and the corresponding rates for csPCa were 46.1%, 56.7%, and 58.3%, respectively. Among patients with unilateral MRI lesions, the PCa detection rates for TB, SB, TB+ipsi-SB, TB+contra-SB, and TB+SB were 53.3%, 64.8%, 65.6%, 61.5%, and 68.0%, respectively. TB+ipsi-SB detected 96.4% of PCa and 95.9% of csPCa cases. These findings suggest that the combination of TB+SB has better diagnostic accuracy compared with SB or TB alone. For patients with unilateral MRI lesions, the combination of TB+ipsi-SB may be suitable in clinical settings.
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.