ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Magnetic resonance imaging for computer-assisted device guidance in transperineal prostate biopsy and cryoablation.
Article in Translational andrology and 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.
- Prostate Cancer Treatment: Cryoablation in Context.Cancers · 2026Review
- Patient experience and procedural safety in prostate biopsy: interpreting patient-reported outcome measures in the era of transperineal biopsy.Translational andrology and urology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided, minimally invasive transperineal interventions have been shown to produce positive clinical outcomes, specifically regarding prostate biopsy and cryoablation of prostate cancer. Many vendors, however, do not provide guidance to clinicians as to how their devices, biopsy needles and cryoprobes should be inserted during procedures. As a result, many leading research institutions have developed in-house solutions for needle insertion guidance. Institutions with less research and engineering support may find the development of their own in-house solutions infeasible, leading to a gap in clinical practice. Our purpose was to develop a replicable toolset using minimal hardware and software to facilitate MRI-guided prostate biopsy and cryoablation. The toolset was validated first in a series of phantom trials, then in a clinical cohort of 24 patients from a single institution. Methods: This study utilized a grid-like rigid trajectory guide coupled with custom software to simulate in phantoms, and then perform on patients, prostate-focused interventional procedures using a closed bore General Electric 450W scanner. Only standard imaging sequences were employed, allowing this work to be generalizable between different scanners with no additional setup. Interventionalists imported the coordinates of the targets in the prostate and the 3 saline-filled fiducial markers on the grid into custom software, which then identified the grid hole and depth of insertion necessary to drive needles to the targeted points. In phantom trials, the targeting error of each insertion was logged. All patients enrolled in the study were men over the age of 50 years with either biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer with magnetic resonance (MR)-visible lesions or prostatic fluid collection. Each patient was reviewed by a multidisciplinary focal prostate therapy team consisting of one interventional radiologist and two urologists. Patients were seen in interventional radiology and urology clinics. During each procedure the number of needle insertions and adjustments was tracked to better evaluate accuracy in clinical practice. Results: The targeting grid and software allowed rapid, repeatable needle insertions with a mean error of 1.05 mm and a standard deviation 0.38 mm. Across 24 prostate-focused procedures (9 biopsies, 14 cryoablations, 1 fluid aspiration), the tools guided interventionalists on their initial insertion of biopsy needles or cryoprobes. In an average procedure, 81.8% of the inserted needles required no adjustment from their first insertion. All procedures achieved technical success during the intervention, satisfying the leading clinician's standards for biopsy sample collection and/or ablation coverage. Conclusions: Phantom and patient trials found that the proposed tools and techniques enabled clinicians to quickly and accurately place their needles in simulated tissue and clinical procedures. This minimal-investment adaptation of a diagnostic scanner for interventional purposes lowers barriers to entry for image-guided prostate interventions, while the trajectory guide's simplicity requires no specialized on-site engineering support and can be readily fabricated, promoting greater ease-of-use.
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.