ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Novel ultrasound scoring system to guide cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy: a prospective study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a novel ultrasound scoring system (USS) for assisting cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy (cTB).
methodsWe prospectively collected a study cohort consisting of 452 patients with biopsy-naïve, PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml and their 531 Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 ≥ 3 lesions. All MRI regions of interest were scored as USS 0, 1, 2, and 3 for the corresponding lesion or region on TRUS. The cumulative cancer detection rate of the biopsy cores was assessed according to USS. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess the csPCa detection rate following the re-stratification of PI-RADS using USS. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed for USS, PI-RADS and USS + PI-RADS. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated at the cut-off selected by the Youden index.
resultsThe overall cancer detection rates for USS scores of 0 to 3 were 0% (0/67), 66% (111/166), 83% (176/210), and 100% (59/59), respectively. For USS 2 and USS 3 lesions, the detection rates in targeting the 3rd core (79%, P = 0.774) and 2nd core (93%, P = 0.125) did not significantly increase with subsequent biopsy cores. In the subgroup analysis, the csPCa positive rate for USS 0 was zero across all PI-RADS categories. In contrast, USS 1, 2, and 3 enhanced the csPCa positive rate within each PI-RADS strata. In ROC analysis, the AUC (95% CI) for the combined USS + PI-RADS 0.85 (0.82-0.89) outperformed PI-RADS 0.77 (0.73-0.81) alone (P < 0.001). USS + PI-RADS sensitivity (95% CI) was 80.7% (75.6-84.9) compared to PI-RADS 72.5% (67.6-77.0).
conclusionIn cTB, USS has good performance in cancer risk re-stratification, with higher USS scores correlating with an increased likelihood of cancer and improved diagnostic accuracy. CLINICAL
trial registrationNo. 2023-272-002, July 14, 2023.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40220167What 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.