ArticleAsian journal of andrology2025
A propensity score-matched analysis on biopsy methods: enhanced detection rates of prostate cancer with combined cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy.
Article in Asian journal of andrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractThe choice of biopsy method is critical in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa). This retrospective cohort study compared systematic biopsy (SB) or cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy combined with SB (CB) in detecting PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Data from 2572 men who underwent either SB or CB in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China) between January 2019 and December 2023 were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics, and detection rates were compared before and after PSM. Subgroup analyses based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores were performed. Primary and secondary outcomes were the detection rates of PCa and csPCa, respectively. Of 2572 men, 1778 were included in the PSM analysis. Before PSM, CB had higher detection rates for both PCa (62.9% vs 52.4%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.54, P < 0.001) and csPCa (54.9% vs 43.3%, OR: 1.60, P < 0.001) compared to SB. After PSM, CB remained superior in detecting PCa (63.1% vs 47.9%, OR: 1.86, P < 0.001) and csPCa (55.0% vs 38.2%, OR: 1.98, P < 0.001). In patients with PSA 4-12 ng ml -1 (>4 ng ml -1 and ≤12 ng ml -1 , which is also applicable to the following text), CB detected more PCa (59.8% vs 40.7%, OR: 2.17, P < 0.001) and csPCa (48.1% vs 27.7%, OR: 2.42, P < 0.001). CB also showed superior csPCa detection in those with PI-RADS 3 lesions (32.1% vs 18.0%, OR: 2.15, P = 0.038). Overall, CB significantly improves PCa and csPCa detection, especially in patients with PSA 4-12 ng ml -1 or PI-RADS 3 lesions.
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.