Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41324010›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

A head-to-head comparison of sextant-systematic biopsy vs. extended-systematic biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis in the era of MRI-targeted biopsy: SEXTANT-PRO non-inferiority randomized clinical trial.

Ruiyi Deng, Jiaheng Shang, Jingyun Wu, Shaojuan Tian, Derun Li, Qi Shen, Shuai Hu, Meixia Shang, Jianhui Qiu, Jingcheng Zhou and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06684652 (Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of Targeted Biopsy Plus Sextant Biopsy in Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT06684652 narecruitingnot on this map

Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of Targeted Biopsy Plus Sextant Biopsy in Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorPeking University First HospitalRan2024 to 2025Enrolled300ConditionsProstate CancerArms3TB+6SB, 3TB+12SB
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

13 authors.

Ruiyi DengDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jiaheng ShangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jingyun WuDepartment of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shaojuan TianDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Derun LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Qi ShenDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shuai HuDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Meixia ShangDepartment of Biostatistics, Peking University Clinical Research Institute, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jianhui QiuDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jingcheng ZhouDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lin CaiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Kan GongDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yi LiuDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In recent years, combined MRI-targeted biopsy (TB) and 12-core extended systematic biopsy (SB) (TB + 12SB) has been recommended for biopsy-naïve patients with MRI-visible lesions for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. However, extended biopsy increases complication burden and healthcare expenditure. This head-to-head RCT aims to compare the novel combined MRI-TB and sextant six-core SB (TB + 6SB) scheme and classical TB + 12SB for PCa diagnosis. Methods: From December 2024 to June 2025, this single-center non-inferiority RCT (NCT06684652) consecutively enrolled 506 biopsy-naïve men with single suspicious lesion on prostate mpMRI. Patients were randomized to undergo TB + 12SB (n = 252) or TB + 6SB (n = 254) through transperineal cognitive fusion technique. The study outcome included clinically significant PCa [csPCa, grade group (GG) ≥2, primary outcome], diagnostic accuracy, complication rates, and health economic profiles. Findings: The baseline characteristics were similar. The csPCa detection rate of TB + 6SB [54.3%, 138/254] was non-inferior to that of TB + 12SB [54.8%, (138/252)] [rate difference and 95% confidence interval: -0.5% (-9.2%, 8.3%)]. Comparable detection was also observed in PCa, high-grade PCa, and clinically insignificant PCa. The concordance in GG between biopsy and radical prostatectomy whole-mount specimens was similar for both TB + 12SB [52.3% (34/65), κ = 0.55] and TB + 6SB [51.7% (30/58), κ = 0.50] groups (p = 0.25). TB + 6SB demonstrated superior safety profiles through significantly relieving the discomfort during the procedure, reducing the post-biopsy pelvic pain, and significantly improving the quality of life (p < 0.05), while concurrently optimizing procedural workflow efficiency and histopathology resource utilization. Interpretation: TB + 6SB achieves non-inferior diagnostic efficacy to classical TB + 12SB with reduced cores and improved safety, positioning it as an effective strategy for PCa diagnosis in biopsy-naïve patients with solitary MRI-suspicious lesions. Funding: Beijing Research Ward Excellence Program (BRWEP2024W054070105), National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (Interdepartmental Research Project of Peking University First Hospital, 2023IR27, 2024IR16).

Indexed as

Clinically significant prostate cancerMultiparametric MRIRandomized controlled trialSextant systematic biopsyTargeted biopsy

Identifiers

PMID41324010
PMCPMC12661352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.