ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Cognitive Targeted Prostate Biopsy Alone for Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Selected Biopsy-Naïve Patients: Results from a Retrospective Pilot Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Transperineal Cognitive Fusion, Systematic, and Combined Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Detection.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Liquid Biopsy: Current advancements in clinical practice for bladder cancer.The journal of liquid biopsy · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: To identify a particular setting of biopsy-naïve patients in which it would be reasonable to offer only cognitive targeted prostate biopsy (PBx) with a transrectal approach. (2) Methods: We designed an observational retrospective pilot study. Patients with a prostatic specific antigen (PSA) level > 10 ng/mL, either a normal or suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE), and a lesion with a PI-RADS score ≥ 4 in the postero-medial or postero-lateral peripheral zone were included. All patients underwent a transrectal PBx, including both systematic and targeted samples. The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason Score ≥ 7) was chosen as the primary outcome. We described the detection rate of csPCa in systematic PBx, targeted PBx, and overall PBx. (3) A total of 92 patients were included. Prostate cancer was detected in 84 patients (91.30%) with combined biopsies. A csPCa was diagnosed in all positive cases (100%) with combined biopsies. Systematic PBxs were positive in 80 patients (86.96%), while targeted PBxs were positive in 84 men (91.30%). Targeted PBx alone would have allowed the diagnosis of csPCa in all positive cases; systematic PBx alone would have missed the diagnosis of 8/84 (9.52%) csPCa cases (4 negative patients and 4 not csPCa) (
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.