ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Learning curve on prostate fusion biopsies: key insights.
Article in World journal of urology, 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 software vs. cognitive-based fusion-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Primary healthcare-friendly prostate cancer prediction model using routine clinical parameters: a multicenter study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMRI-guided prostate biopsies offering improved accuracy in detecting clinically significant cancer. Image fusion (IF) techniques have shown promise, but their adoption requires overcoming a learning curve. This study evaluates the impact of operator experience on prostate biopsy outcomes using the HITACHI ultrasound system.
methodsThis study was conducted from September 2016 to March 2020, including 148 patients undergoing mpMRI and targeted biopsies. The patients were grouped into Early (first 50 cases), Intermediate (cases 51-100), and Late (cases 101-148) phases, based on operator experience. Biopsy outcomes, including cancer detection rates, procedure times, and false-negative rates, were analyzed across these phases.
resultsA significant learning curve was observed. In the Early phase, the detection rate for clinically significant cancers was 12%, increasing to 18% in the Intermediate phase and 25% in the Late phase. The overall positivity rate rose from 30 to 45%, while procedure times decreased from 45 to 30 min. Sensitivity for detecting clinically significant cancer improved from 60 to 85%, showing enhanced accuracy with operator experience.
conclusionOperator experience plays a crucial role in improving prostate biopsy outcomes using IF techniques. As proficiency increased, both cancer detection rates and procedural efficiency improved. These findings emphasize the need for adequate training and experience to optimize results and ensure the full benefits of fusion biopsy technologies in prostate cancer diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40192861What 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.