ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Biproximate ellipsoid formula with transrectal ultrasound: a superior method for PSA density in gray zone prostate cancer detection.
Article in Discover oncology, 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.
- Recent advances in discriminating prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases in the pre-biopsy population.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic and Clinical Impact of Imaging Modality on PSA Density: TRUS Versus MRI in Gray-Zone Prostate Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to enhance prostate cancer (PCa) detection in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels within the "gray zone" (4-10 ng/mL) by comparing PSA density (PSAD) calculations derived from the traditional ellipsoid formula (TEF) and the biproximate ellipsoid formula (BPEF). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 99 patients were enrolled. All participants underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) for prostate volume estimation, followed by PSAD calculation using both the BPEF and TEF methods. The BPEF method, which incorporates well-defined anatomical landmarks, was assessed for its accuracy in prostate volume measurement and diagnostic performance for PCa compared to TEF. Inter- and intra-observer consistency were also evaluated for both approaches.
resultsBoth BPEF and TEF reliably measured prostate volume, however, BPEF demonstrated superior accuracy and higher consistency in inter- and intra-observer assessments. PSAD calculated using BPEF (BPEF-PSAD) exhibited significantly greater diagnostic performance than TEF-PSAD, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84. At the optimal diagnostic threshold of 0.15 ng/mL/cm³, BPEF-PSAD achieved a sensitivity of 88.89% and a specificity of 74.60%, enhancing the discrimination between PCa and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified BPEF-PSAD as an independent predictor of PCa.
conclusionsThe study concluded that the BPEF method, when combined with TRUS, improves the accuracy of PSA density measurements, potentially reducing unnecessary biopsies in patients with intermediate PSA levels, particularly in cases where MRI is unavailable or contraindicated.
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.