ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Optimizing prostate biopsy: the role of targeted, regional, and systematic approaches.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. 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.
- A Triple Clinical Filter Model for Selective Omission of Systematic Cores in Transperineal Cognitive Prostate Biopsy: A Retrospective Observational Study.The Prostate · 2026Observational
- Diagnostic Performance of Perineal MRI-US Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Single-Center Prospective Cohort Analysis.Biomedicines · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeProstate biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa). Recent studies suggest that the necessity and contribution of systematic biopsy (SB), where the entire prostate is sampled, are decreasing. The EAU has updated its guidelines, replacing the recommendation of targeted biopsy (TB) + SB with TB + regional biopsy (RB). This study aims to compare the detection rates of TB alone, TB + RB, and TB + SB combinations.
methods803 patients with a single lesion on mpMRI who underwent TB + SB between 2019 and 2025 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent TB + SB, and each core was reported separately and grouped into categories as TB, TB + RB, TB + SB.
resultsIn PIRADS 3 and 5 lesions, TB alone performed similar to TB + SB in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (p = 0.063 and p = 0.5). In the PIRADS 4 group, TB’s sensitivity was 80.5% (p < 0.001). Among 23 PIRADS 4 patients where csPCa was detected by SB but missed by TB, the lesions were smaller in size (7.15 mm vs. 9.88 mm, p < 0.001). ROC analysis determined a cut-off value of 9.25 mm. In lesions < 9.25 mm, csPCa was detected in 59 patients, with TB detecting 39 of these (66.1%) (p < 0.001). TB + RB detected 56/59 (94.9%) csPCa in < 9.25 mm lesions (p = 0.125). For PIRADS 4 lesions ≥ 9.25 mm, csPCa was detected in 59 patients, with TB detecting 56 of these (94.9%) (p = 0.25).
conclusionThe findings suggest that the current recommendation of TB + RB may not be universally optimal and biopsy strategies can be individualized based on PIRADS score, location, and size.TB + RB is essential for optimizing csPCa detection in PIRADS 4 lesions < 9.25 mm. In contrast, TB alone may be adequate for PIRADS 4 lesions ≥ 9.25 mm, PIRADS 5 lesions, non–peripheral zone lesions, and lesions involving both hemiglands, without compromising csPCa detection. Furthermore, the addition of RB or SB to TB, increases the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (CIPC) in PIRADS 3 lesions, PIRADS 4 lesions ≥ 9.25 mm, and non–peripheral zone lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41324665What 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.