ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Assessing the oncologic risk when systematic and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy grade groups are discordant.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
42 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the systematic biopsy era, prostate biopsy grading followed the rule that the International Society of Urological Pathology grade group assigned was the highest grade group of any core. This rule has been retained in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy in the case of discordance between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy samples. We assessed whether oncologic risk in patients undergoing systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy was driven by the highest grade group of the two.
methodsOverall, 6588 patients received systematic biopsy plus MRI-targeted biopsy and radical prostatectomy. We assessed advanced stage (seminal vesicle or lymph node invasion with or without extraprostatic extension), adverse pathology (advanced stage or high grade group), and biochemical recurrence for each systematic biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy grade group combination.
resultsOverall, 3405 (52%) had discordant grade groups. When systematic biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy grades were discordant, the risk of advanced-stage disease was intermediate. For instance, the risk of advanced pathologic stage was 23% for grade group 3 on both systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy and 8.8% for concordant grade group 2. The risk was 18% for patients with systematic biopsy grade group 3 but targeted biopsy grade group 2 and 15% if the reverse were true. Similar results were seen for other outcomes.
conclusionsWhen the grade group is discordant between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy, the risk is intermediate. The current approach of assigning the highest grade group should be abandoned, and urologists should consider deescalating treatment intensity for patients with discordant systematic biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy grade groups. Our findings are plausibly explained by pattern 4 volume being the primary driver of risk.
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.