Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41273426›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using targeted MRI-informed microultrasound biopsy.

Allison B Forrest, Danielle E Kruse, Brian Calio, Michael C Ivey, Jeffrey Gahan, Martus Gn, Rajan T Gupta, Tara Morgan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Allison B Forrest *Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Danielle E Kruse *Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Brian CalioDepartment of Urology, Duke University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Michael C IveyDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Jeffrey GahanDepartment of Urology, Duke University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Martus GnDepartment of Urology, Duke University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Rajan T GuptaDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. rajan.gupta@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2984-5010
Tara MorganDepartment of Urology, Duke University, Raleigh, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study compares the rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-informed microultrasound-guided (microUS) biopsy to historical published data using mpMRI-ultrasound (mpMRI-US) fusion biopsy at the same institution. MATERIALS AND

methodsA single-center retrospective study of patients who underwent mpMRI-informed microultrasound-guided (microUS) biopsy was performed. Positive predictive value (PPV) of targeted lesions by PI-RADS and PRI-MUS (Prostate Risk Identification Using Microultrasound) was calculated and compared to published data using an mpMRI-US fusion platform.

results169 subjects and 244 total lesions were identified by mpMRI. 44/244 (18.0%), 167/244 (68.4%), and 33/244 (13.5%) were PI-RADS 5, 4, and 3, respectively. 206/244 (84.4%) lesions seen on mpMRI were identified on microUS. 26 additional lesions were identified by microUS only. PCa was identified in 120/169 (71.0%) patients, and csPCa was identified in 70/169 (41.4%) by targeted microUS-guided biopsy of MRI lesions. Targeted biopsy of lesions seen only on microUS added three cases of csPCa (73/169, 43.2%). PPV of targeted PI-RADS 5, 4, and 3 lesions for all PCa and csPCa was 0.80, 0.61, and 0.39, and 0.64, 0.31, and 0.12, respectively. Findings were not significantly different compared to historical data using mpMRI-US fusion biopsy (p > 0.05). PPV for csPCa was 0.18 for mpMRI lesions when no correlate was identified by microUS, compared to 0.37 for lesions when a correlate was seen (p < 0.05).

conclusionsThis retrospective study demonstrates successful implementation of microUS-guided biopsy, with similar rates of identification of csPCa compared to historical data using mpMRI-US fusion. KEY POINTS: Question There is limited real-world comparison of the rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using mpMRI-informed microUS-guided biopsy compared to historical mpMRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy. Findings Identification of clinically significant prostate cancer by microUS-guided biopsy was similar to mpMRI-US fusion biopsy, suggesting microUS-guided biopsy performs as well as mpMRI-US fusion biopsy. Clinical relevance Our study shows the complementary role of mpMRI and microUS for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, supporting the combined approach of these techniques.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsUltrasonography, InterventionalAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProstateRetrospective StudiesImage-guided biopsyMultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID41273426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.