ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and accuracy with radical prostatectomy specimens: a grading issue.
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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the accuracy of ISUP grade groups (GG) determined from MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens using the 2014 and 2019 ISUP recommendations, and to identify predictors of upgrading.
methodsWe analyzed 212 consecutive patients who underwent both MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies followed by RP at the Jules Bordet Institute from October 2019 to January 2025. GG were assigned per 2019 ISUP guidelines, using the highest Gleason score, either from the global score of MRI-targeted lesions (including perilesional cores) or from individual systematic biopsy cores. Sensitivity analyses explored an empirical update to the 2019. ISUP recommendations by excluding minor higher-grade patterns (< 5%). Accuracy was compared using McNemar's test and weighted kappa (κ) statistics. Predictors of upgrading were identified via multivariable logistic regression and CHAID analysis.
resultsThe 2019 ISUP recommendations improved concordance with RP specimens by 8% (CI: 0.02-0.14, p = 0.002), reduced downgrading rates by 11% (CI:0.16 - 0.06, p < 0.001) and shown upgrading in 16% of cases (n = 33/212), representing a 3% increase compared to 2014 ISUP criteria (CI: 0.0008-0.06, p = 0.03). Weighted κ-values improved between the 2014 (κ = 0.58), 2019 (κ = 0.72) and updated 2019 ISUP recommendations (κ = 0.77). PSA-level (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11, 95%CI: 1.04-1.18, p = 0.001) and number of cores with clinically significant (Cs-) PCa (OR: 0.67, 95%CI: 0.54-0.82, p < 0.001) were independent predictors of upgrading. CHAID analysis confirmed that patients with ≤ 4 positive cores had a higher risk of upgrading (20% vs. 8.2%).
conclusionThe 2019 ISUP recommendations enhance PCa grading accuracy. The number of cores with csPCa is a key predictor of upgrading and should inform treatment decisions. These findings support the integration of the 2019 ISUP guidelines into clinical practice to improve risk stratification and minimize overtreatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40711515What 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.