Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39876544›Full record

ArticleThe Prostate2025

Optimizing Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Work-Up Through Micro-Ultrasound: Minimizing Unnecessary Procedures and Reducing Overdiagnoses.

Edoardo Beatrici, Fabio De Carne, Nicola Frego, Stefano Moretto, Marco Paciotti, Vittorio Fasulo, Alessandro Uleri, Giuseppe Garofano, Pier Paolo Avolio, Giuseppe Chiarelli and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Edoardo BeatriciDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1209-2956
Fabio De CarneDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Nicola FregoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Stefano MorettoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Marco PaciottiDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
Vittorio FasuloDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
Alessandro UleriDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2392-2775
Giuseppe GarofanoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Pier Paolo AvolioDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Giuseppe ChiarelliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Roberto ContieriDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Paola ArenaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Cesare SaittaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Federica SordelliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Alberto SaitaDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
Rodolfo HurleDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
Paolo CasaleDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7899-5736
NicolòMaria BuffiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Massimo LazzeriDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
Giovanni LughezzaniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3939-4521

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.
6 · The paper itself

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

OverdiagnosisProstatic NeoplasmsUnnecessary ProceduresAgedEarly Detection of CancerHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingProspective StudiesProstateProstate-Specific AntigenUltrasonographyProstate-Specific Antigendiagnosisprostate cancerscreeningultrasound

Identifiers

PMID39876544
PMCPMC11934833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.