ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Software mpMR/US fusion, cognitive, and in-bore biopsy: a comparative analysis of prostate cancer detection.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThree MR-targeted biopsy (MR-TB) techniques-software fusion (FUS-TB), cognitive (COG-TB), and in-bore (IB-TB)-are considered comparable by EAU guidelines, although recommendations remain weak. This study aimed to compare detection rates of clinically significant (csPCa), insignificant (cisPCa), and overall prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, non-randomized, controlled bicentric study (2019-2024) included biopsy-naïve and previously negative biopsy patients with suspected PCa (PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL, TRUS lesion, positive DRE and PI-RADSv2.1 score ≥ 3). FUS-TB was performed transperineally (3-5 cores) with template mapping biopsy (TPMB; > 20 cores), while COG-TB and IB-TB were performed transrectally (3-5 and 2-3 cores, respectively). COG-TB was combined with standard biopsy (TRUS-GB; 8-12 cores). CsPCa was defined as ISUP grade group ≥ 2.
resultsIn total, 481 patients were enrolled: 334 underwent FUS-TB + TPMB, 102-COG-TB + TRUS-GB, and 45-IB-TB. PCa detection was similar among groups: FUS-TB (43.4%), COG-TB (42.1%), and IB-TB (40.0%) (p = 0.89). CsPCa detection was also comparable: 23.1%, 30.3%, and 35.5%, respectively (p = 0.09). Subgroup analysis by PI-RADS and multivariable logistic regression confirmed no significant differences in csPCa detection. IB-TB yielded the lowest cisPCa detection (4.4%, p < 0.01). Adding systematic biopsy to FUS-TB and COG-TB resulted in non-significant increases in csPCa detection (+ 6.6%, p = 0.054; + 4.0%, p = 0.55). There were not considerable differences in positive core proportion (p = 0.76), maximum cancer core length (MCCL) (p = 0.08), or ISUP concordance (p = 0.2).
conclusionMR-TB techniques demonstrate comparable csPCa detection after adjustment. IB-TB may reduce overdiagnosis due to lower cisPCa detection rates. Systematic biopsy provides limited additional value, but all results should be interpreted with caution given the study's design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40833488What 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.