ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2026
Micro-ultrasound transperineal prostate biopsy as an alternative to MRI-US fusion transrectal biopsy.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer Detection.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- From Detection to Surveillance: The Evolving Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Micro-ultrasound in the Canadian prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExactVu micro-ultrasound generates high-resolution images and promises to improve prostate biopsy performance, while transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB) has gained popularity due to its sterile technique. The aim of this study was to compare TPB using ExactVu to transrectal biopsy (TRB).
methodsA retrospective analysis of patients who underwent TPB (n=306) using ExactVu or TRB (n=392) from 2019-2023 was performed. Clinical parameters were compared between the groups using Chi-squared test. Putative predictors of cancer on biopsy and upgrading on radical prostatectomy were investigated using logistic regression.
resultsMore transperineal than transrectal biopsy patients had a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesion (40% vs. 28%, p=0.001) and were biopsynaive (53% vs. 39%, p<0.001). In patients with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer, the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was higher in the TPB group (53% vs. 42%, p=0.01). Transperineal patients required fewer cores to obtain equal cancer detection rates (11±5 vs. 15±4 cores, p<0.01). Upgrading from grade group 1 to grade group ≥2 on radical prostatectomy was more common with TRB (9.1% vs. 2.1%, p=0.04). Urinary retention rate did not differ by biopsy type and two transrectal but no transperineal patients developed urosepsis.
conclusionsTPB required fewer cores to obtain a similar clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate when compared to TRB. TPB had fewer complications and a low upgrade rate. This suggests that cognitive fusion TPB using ExactVu is an excellent alternative to software fusion TRB.
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.