ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Usefulness of urinary biomarker-based risk score and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection in biopsy-naïve patients.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. 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.
- Comparison of prostate cancer diagnostic models based on PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG RNA biomarkers from post-DRE and non-DRE urine specimens.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Performance of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG Within the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator Version 2 in a Lithuanian Cohort.Research and reports in urology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), genetic urinary test (GUT), and prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator version 2.0 (PCPTRC2) for the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnostic in biopsy-naïve patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a single center study between 2021 and 2024 participants underwent prostate mpMRI, GUT, and ultrasound (US) guided biopsy. The csPCa risk was calculated using PCPTRC2. After conducting a digital rectal examination (DRE), a GUT was performed. It incorporated the RNA levels of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) gene and ETS-related gene (ERG) fusion genes (T: E), along with the patient's age and PSA density. The McNemar test compared detection rates between modalities.
results208 (mean age 62.9 years +/- 8.2) men were included prospectively. A positive GUT score was found in 67.8% and PIRADS ≥3 in 81.7% of all cases. The combination of GUT with mpMRI showed significantly higher sensitivity (99.1%) than GUT and mpMRI alone, 84.4% and 93.8%, respectively (p ≤ 0.05). Similarly, very high sensitivity (99.0%) was achieved by combining mpMRI with PCPTCR2. Nevertheless, mpMRI plus GUT combination exceeded mpMRI plus PCPTCR2 by allowing to save a higher fraction of unnecessary biopsies, 25% and 2.4%, respectively.
conclusionGUT and mpMRI combination would allow saving a substantial fraction of unnecessary biopsies with minimal risk of missing csPCa cases.
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.