ArticleThe Prostate2025
Optimizing Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Work-Up Through Micro-Ultrasound: Minimizing Unnecessary Procedures and Reducing Overdiagnoses.
Article in The Prostate, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 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
- The value of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer screening: A retrospective real-world feasibility study.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- Evolving role of biomarkers beyond prostate‑specific antigen in refining prostate cancer screening: From blood‑based tests to urinary and genetic markers (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- From Detection to Surveillance: The Evolving Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Impact of a new diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer-from systematic transrectal to targeted MRI fusion transperineal biopsies.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- AI in High-Frequency Micro-Ultrasound: Advancing Prostate Imaging from Segmentation to Cancer Detection.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe aim to critically assess Microultrasound (mUS) clinical performance in an outpatient setting, focusing on its ability to reduce unnecessary diagnostic procedures, potentially reshape prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic protocols, and increase the ability to rule out clinically significant (Gleason Score ≥ 3 + 4) PCa (csPCa). MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween November 2018 and April 2022, we conducted a prospective study involving men who underwent mUS examination due to clinical symptoms, PSA elevation, or opportunistic early detection of PCa. Experienced urologists performed mUS assessments in an outpatient setting using the prostate risk identification using micro-ultrasound (PRI-MUS) protocol to identify lesions suspicious of csPCa (PRI-MUS score ≥ 3). Men with negative mUS results were followed through consistent phone follow-up calls and visits until October 2023 to assess their diagnostic and therapeutic pathways. Using Cox regression models adjusted for PSA levels, DRE results, age, and previous biopsy history, we calculated the hazard ratio (HR) for biopsy-free (BFS), defined as the time from mUS to biopsy or last follow-up, cancer-free survival (CFS), and clinically significant cancer-free survival (csCFS) within the cohort based on mUS results.
resultsOverall, 425 men were enrolled. The median (IQR) age was 66 (59-72) years, PSA levels were 5.7 (4.0-7.9) ng/mL, prostate volume was 44 (31.5-62.1) mL, and the median follow-up was 39 months (27-53). mUS identified lesions suggesting csPCa in 201/425 (47.3%) men. Overall, mUS resulted negative in 224/425 (52.7%) men, of whom 207/224 (92.4%) did not undergo subsequent mpMRI, while 22/224 (9.8%) proceeded with mpMRI according to the referring physician's decision. The latter detected suspicious lesions in 12/22 cases (54.5%), but only 2/12 (16.7%) were confirmed by biopsy as csPCa. Among those with negative mUS results, 192/224 (85.7%) men avoided additional biopsies during follow-up. Men with negative mUS results exhibited superior BFS (aHR: 0.17; p < 0.001), CFS (aHR:0.12; p < 0.001), and csCFS (aHR:0.09; p < 0.001) survival rates compared to their mUS-positive counterparts.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that mUS can potentially refine patient stratification and transform PCa screening and diagnostic protocols. Pending validation by other studies, a wider implementation of mUS could optimize resource allocation, minimize wastage, and reserve additional costly tests.
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.