ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024
Comparison of rigid and elastic registration methods in software-based targeted prostate biopsy: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: This study aims to compare the success rates of rigid registration (RR) and elastic registration (ER) systems in diagnosing all cancers and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) in software-based targeted prostate biopsies (TPBs) by performing matching analysis. Materials and methods: The data of 2061 patients from six centers where software-based TPB is performed were used. All cancer and csPC detection rates of the RR and ER systems were compared following Mahalanobis distance matching with the propensity score caliper method. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify factors predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPC) and csPC diagnoses. Additionally, the International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (ISUP GG) upgrade rates of RR and ER systems were compared between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathologies. Results: The matched sample included 157 RR and 157 ER patients. No statistically significant difference was found between ER and RR in terms of csPC detection rate (28.0% vs. 22.3% respectively, p = 0.242). The detection rate of all cancers by ER compared to RR was found to be significantly higher (54.8% vs. 35.7% respectively p < 0.001,). No statistically significant difference was found between the ER and RR groups regarding pathological upgrade (39.7% vs. 24.2% respectively, p = 0.130). In the logistic regression analysis performed to determine the factors predicting ciPC, decreased prostate volume and ER system use were found to be independent predictive factors. Conclusion: While the detection rate of csPC was similar for the RR and ER systems, the detection rate of all cancers and ciPC was significantly higher with the ER systems.
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.