ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2024
Evaluating the Role of Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer trial - phase 1: Early experience of micro-ultrasound in the United Kingdom.
Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric-MRI and Micro-ultrasound for clinically significant prostate cancer-a bivariate meta-analysis of prospective studies.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the use of micro-ultrasound can detect clinically significant prostate pathology when compared to histology obtained during a transperineal prostate biopsy. Methods: Patients suspected of having prostate cancer, who had a pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging and could tolerate a transrectal examination, were prospectively recruited. All patients had a micro-ultrasound scan prior to their biopsy. The findings of magnetic resonance imaging, micro-ultrasound and histology were risk stratified in accordance with local pathways. Comparison of assigned risk scores was made using histology as the reference standard. Results: Data from 101 patients were evaluated. Histology showed that clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48.5% ( Conclusion: A limitation of this study was that the biopsy was not performed with micro-ultrasound which may have resulted in unidentified cancers and lowered the apparent accuracy of the technique. However, we conclude that while micro-ultrasound was diagnostic, magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated higher sensitivity in our local population and remains the pre-biopsy imaging modality of choice. However, the higher specificity of micro-ultrasound identified does indicate that it may be of value when magnetic resonance imaging is contraindicated. The role of micro-ultrasound, within an active surveillance pathway for prostate cancer, warrants further investigation.
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.