Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40291786›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2025

Personalised Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Evaluating Biomarker-based Approaches to Reduce Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biopsy Procedures.

Timo F W Soeterik, Xiaobo Wu, Roderick C N Van den Bergh, Claudia Kesch, Fabio Zattoni, Ugo Falagario, Alberto Martini, Marcin Miszczyk, Vittorio Fasulo, Martina Maggi and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Theranostic Potential of a NewPharmaceutics · 2025
    Article
  11. IntegratingCancers · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Prostate Cancer.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
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

16 authors.

Timo F W SoeterikDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Xiaobo WuS. H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Roderick C N Van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Claudia KeschDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Fabio ZattoniUrology Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Ugo FalagarioDepartment of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Alberto MartiniDepartment of Urology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Marcin MiszczykDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Vittorio FasuloDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Martina MaggiDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Veeru KasivisvanathanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Giancarlo MarraUniversity Hospital S Giovanni Battista, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Giorgio GandagliaDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Peter K F ChiuS. H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Party

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Efforts made over the last decade for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) have revolutionised disease diagnostics, and implementation of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has received widespread acceptance. However, universal adoption of prebiopsy MRI and the benefits achieved have been limited by availability and equivocal MRI findings. This review aims to evaluate the latest evidence on the role of existing PCa risk calculators (RCs), and blood and urinary biomarkers as part of the diagnostic algorithm to improve the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and reduce unnecessary MRI procedures and biopsies. We will also evaluate the potential of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) to enhance sensitivity and specificity for PCa diagnosis, complement MRI, and refine biopsy strategies within the diagnostic pathway. Methods: We performed a narrative review using the PubMed/MEDLINE database, which included papers published between January 2014 and June 2024. The outcome measures included rates of reduced diagnoses of nonsignificant PCa (defined as International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade group 1) cases, diagnoses of csPCa (defined as ISUP grade group ≥2) cases missed, and MRI scans and prostate biopsies avoided. Key findings and limitations: In men with abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, further risk stratification using RCs, or blood or urine biomarkers can reduce up to 16-51% MRI scans, while missing 1-16% csPCa cases. In case of equivocal MRI results or Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions, RCs or biomarkers could reduce up to 72% of biopsies, while missing only 3-13% csPCa cases. PSMA PET has emerging potential to improve csPCa prediction in combination with MRI and may further reduce unnecessary biopsies. A limitation of this study is that this is a narrative but not a systematic review. Conclusions and clinical implications: RCs and biomarkers have been demonstrated to enhance the performance and efficiency of MRI in detecting csPCa in men with elevated PSA levels. PSMA PET shows promise in detecting csPCa, complementing MRI and refining biopsy indications. Patient summary: In men with a suspicion of prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging prostate scans are effective in predicting clinically relevant cancer, but challenges including availability and equivocal scans exist. A personalised approach by adding one or more of clinical risk calculators, blood or urine biomarkers, or even novel imaging techniques such as positron emission tomography scans may improve cancer prediction further and reduce unnecessary scans and biopsies.

Indexed as

BiopsyDiagnostic pathwayMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerScreening

Identifiers

PMID40291786
PMCPMC12032181

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.