ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of prostate cancer detection using micro-ultrasound versus MRI through co-registration to whole-mount pathology.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Micro-ultrasonography- vs MRI-targeted biopsy in prostate cancer: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2026Pooled it
- The Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer Detection.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- From Detection to Surveillance: The Evolving Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development of ultrasonography for the detection of prostate cancer.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Review
- Biomarkers for Precision Prognosis in Prostate Cancer: Imaging, Molecular, and Integrated Approaches.Cancers · 2026Review
- Article
- Micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- [Influence of MRI fusion biopsy on treatment recommendations : How reliable are biopsy results?]Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- AI in High-Frequency Micro-Ultrasound: Advancing Prostate Imaging from Segmentation to Cancer Detection.Cancers · 2026Review
- Micro-ultrasound in the Canadian prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
- Primary healthcare-friendly prostate cancer prediction model using routine clinical parameters: a multicenter study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Developments in Ultrasound-Based Imaging for Prostate Cancer Detection.The Prostate · 2025Review
- MINIMALLY USER-GUIDED 3D MICRO-ULTRASOUND PROSTATE SEGMENTATION.Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging · 2025Article
- MPR-DIFF: A SELF-SUPERVISED DIFFUSION MODEL FOR MULTI-PLANAR REFORMATION IN PROSTATE MICRO-ULTRASOUND IMAGING.Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging · 2025Article
- Time-Intensity Curve parametric imaging as a novel quantitative biomarker: enhancing diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability in prostate cancer ultrasound.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Research on application of multiparametric MRI to predict FNCLCC grading and ki67 expression in soft tissue sarcoma biopsy pathology: Based on a CT-MRI fusion image registration method.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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Micro-ultrasound has recently been introduced as a low-cost alternative to multi-parametric MRI for imaging prostate cancer. Early clinical studies have demonstrated promising results; however, robust validation via comparison with whole-mount pathology has yet to be achieved. Due to micro-ultrasound probe design and tissue deformation during scanning, it is difficult to accurately correlate micro-ultrasound imaging planes with ground truth whole-mount pathology slides. In this study, we developed a multi-step methodology to co-register micro-ultrasound and MRI to whole-mount pathology. The three-step process had a registration error of 3.90 ± 0.11 mm and consists of: (1) micro-ultrasound image reconstruction, (2) 3D landmark registration of micro-ultrasound to MRI, and (3) 2D capsule registration of MRI to whole-mount pathology. This process was then used in a preliminary reader study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound and MRI in 15 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Micro-ultrasound was found to have equivalent performance to retrospective MRI review for index lesion detection (91.7% vs. 80%), while demonstrating an increased detection of tumor extent (52.5% vs. 36.7%) with similar false positive regions-of-interest (38.3% vs. 40.8%). Prospective MRI review had reduced detection of index lesions (73.3%) and tumor extent (18.9%) but improved false positive regions-of-interest (22.7%) relative to micro-ultrasound and retrospective MRI. Further evaluation is needed with a larger sample size.
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.