ReviewCancers2025
Identifying Optimal Prostate Biopsy Strategy for the Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) in Biopsy-Naïve Population.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Systematic Biopsy Core Number on Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection and Complications in MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Long-Term Observed Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer After Negative mpMRI and Systematic Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Men: A MULTIPROS Subanalysis.Prostate cancer · 2026Article
- Influence of Prostate Volume on Targeted Biopsy Outcomes and PI-RADS Predictive Value for Significant Prostate Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Cognitive Fusion-Guided Transperineal Biopsy Leading to the Diagnosis of Early Prostate Adenocarcinoma After Repeated Negative Evaluations: A Case Report.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe growing role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) suggests they may replace random systematic biopsy (SBx), specifically detection and subsequent treatment of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).
objectivesTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the detection rates (DR) of csPCa using MRI-TBx alone, SBx alone, or their combination in biopsy naïve patients suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa).
methodsPubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 23 March 2023, for RCTs comparing PCa DR between biopsy strategies in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Detection rates were pooled using random/fixed effect models, and the study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias revised tool.
resultsTen RCTs (involving 3646 patients) were analysed, revealing that the combined biopsy method achieved higher overall csPCa DR compared to the SBx method alone (RR = 1.40 [95% CI = 1.15-1.71] and 1.47 [95% CI = 1.13-1.92], respectively). However, there was no significant difference in DR for clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPCa) between the two methods.
conclusionsThis review concludes that MRI-TBx and SBx detect overall and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) better than SBx alone. The variety of factors requires cautious interpretation, yet these findings are the strongest evidence. The combination technique is recommended for biopsy-naïve groups, but more study is needed to optimise execution and overcome uncertainties.
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.