ArticleThe Prostate2026
Diagnostic Value of Micro-Ultrasound in Identifying Local Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy.
Article in The Prostate, 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.
- From Detection to Surveillance: The Evolving Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Value of Micro-Ultrasound in Identifying Local Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy.The Prostate · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe limited resolution of standard transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has made it difficult to perform biopsies of the prostate bed in cases of suspected local recurrence following radical prostatectomy. The aim of this study was to benchmark the performance of using high resolution micro-ultrasound (microUS) in place of standard TRUS for performing post-prostatectomy biopsies. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of pathology reports from January 2013 to October 2024, identifying patients who underwent biopsies of the prostate bed for suspected local recurrence after radical prostate. Sensitivity and specificity were compared for biopsies performed using standard TRUS. A biopsy was deemed diagnostic if it revealed prostate tissue (cancerous or benign) or non-prostatic tissue when a previously suspicious lesion was no longer detectable on subsequent imaging. The ground truth for local recurrence was defined by biochemical recurrence (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥ 0.2 ng/mL in two consecutive measurements) accompanied by reproducible findings in the prostate bed on MRI and/or PET.
resultsOf the 24 patients included, 10 (42%) underwent microUS-guided biopsy and 14 (58%) underwent TRUS-guided biopsy. The median PSA levels at biopsy for the microUS and TRUS cohorts were 0.39 ng/mL (range 0.39-6.40) and 0.45 ng/mL (range 0.20-30.82), respectively. The median lesion sizes on MRI were 0.9 cm (IQR 0.7-1.8) for microUS and 2.5 cm (IQR 1.2-6) for TRUS. MicroUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI: 52-100), compared with 43% (95% CI: 18-71) for TRUS. Specificity could not be reliably assessed, as only one recurrence-negative patient was available in the microUS group and none in the TRUS group.
conclusionMicroUS-guided transrectal biopsies appear to offer superior diagnostic performance in detecting local recurrences following radical prostatectomy compared to standard TRUS-guided biopsy. Further study is needed to confirm our findings and to evaluate the performance of microUS-guided biopsies independently of pre-biopsy imaging results.
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.