Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39666360›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2025

Oncological Safety of MRI-Informed Biopsy Decision-Making in Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer.

Charlie A Hamm, Patrick Asbach, Anna Pöhlmann, Ivo G Schoots, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Thomas O Henkel, Manfred Johannsen, Thomas Speck, Alexander D J Baur, Matthias Haas and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The evolving PI-RADS paradigm.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Charlie A HammDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Patrick AsbachDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Anna PöhlmannInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ivo G SchootsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Veeru KasivisvanathanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England, United Kingdom.
Thomas O HenkelGerman Society of Urology (DGU), Berlin, Germany.
Manfred JohannsenUrology Practice Johannsen & Laux, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas SpeckUrology Practice Speck, Berlin, Germany.
Alexander D J BaurDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Matthias HaasDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Federico CollettiniDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Tobias PenzkoferDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Lynn J SavicDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Frank KonietschkeInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Lothar WeißbachGesundheitsforschung für Männer gGmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Bernd HammDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Frank KönigDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany.
Hannes CashDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathway for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) uses multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for prostate biopsy (PB) decision-making. However, the intermediate impact on patient outcomes in men with negative MRI results avoiding PB and men with positive MRI results without PCa remains unknown. Objective: To assess the feasibility and safety of a community-based MRI diagnostic strategy in men with suspected PCa using 3-year active monitoring. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite, longitudinal cohort trial took place across 54 community-based urology practices and 2 radiology imaging centers at a referral academic institution in Berlin, Germany. Eligible participants aged 18 to 75 years with clinically suspected PCa were enrolled between September 2016 and December 2017 and monitored for 3 years. Final analysis was reported on December 23, 2023. Exposures: Participants underwent 3-T mpMRI. Men with findings suspected to be PCa were recommended for targeted PB (diagnostic phase). Men with negative mpMRI results or positive mpMRI results with benign findings at PB were systematically monitored for 3 years (monitoring phase). Clinical visits were recommended every 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The total proportion of men avoiding PB and those with csPCa. Results: A total of 593 men (median [IQR] age, 64 [58-70] years) underwent mpMRI, with 286 (48%) having negative MRI results, 261 (44%) avoiding PB initially, and 242 (41%) avoiding PB over 3 years. csPCa was detected in 161 (27%) men after immediate PB, increasing to 172 (29%) men after 3 years. Seven men with negative MRI results were diagnosed with PCa by immediate PB (including 4 cases of csPCa), while 279 entered monitoring. Three-year monitoring was completed by 233 (84%) men, with 7 diagnoses of csPCa. Of 307 men with positive MRI results, 58 (19%) showed no PCa after immediate PB, of which 41 (71%) completed monitoring and 4 (7%) were diagnosed with csPCa. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, men with negative mpMRI results avoiding biopsy were not at elevated risk of csPCa. The study confirms the oncological safety of the prebiopsy MRI strategy of avoiding an immediate PB after negative MRI results when a programmatic safety net is in place.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAdultAgedBiopsyClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingHumansImage-Guided BiopsyLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39666360
PMCPMC11843366

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.