Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41392525›Full record

ArticleBJU international2026

Comparable recurrence risk for MRI-detected Gleason Grade Group (GG) 2 and systematic biopsy-detected GG1 prostate cancer.

Abderrahim-Oussama Batouche, Eugen Czeizler, Timo-Pekka Lehto, Andrew Erickson, Tolou Shadbahr, Teemu D Laajala, Joona Pohjonen, Tuomas Mirtti, Antti S Rannikko

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Abderrahim-Oussama Batouche *Research Program in Systems Oncology, Research Programs Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-4181-9891
Eugen Czeizler *Research Program in Systems Oncology, Research Programs Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Timo-Pekka LehtoResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Research Programs Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Andrew EricksonResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Research Programs Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-4850-4086
Tolou ShadbahrResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Research Programs Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5715-5933
Teemu D LaajalaResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Research Programs Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Joona PohjonenResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Research Programs Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Tuomas MirttiResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Research Programs Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Antti S RannikkoResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Research Programs Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-4261-3484

Funding

Academy of FinlandJane ja Aatos Erkon SäätiöSigrid Juséliuksen Säätiöstate funding for university-level health researchSyöpäjärjestöt
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the likelihood of definitive treatment and risk of post-treatment recurrence for patients with Gleason Grade Group (GG) 2 cancer diagnosed using targeted biopsies relative to men with GG1 cancer diagnosed using systematic biopsies. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a retrospective study using a large tertiary centre registry (the HUS Acamedic data lake) to retrieve data on prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, treatment, and cancer recurrence. We included patients with either GG1 PCa detected by systematic biopsies (n = 3317) or GG2 PCa detected with targeted biopsies (n = 554) between 1993 and 2019. We assessed the risk of curative treatment and recurrence after treatment. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate treatment- and recurrence-free survival, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of post-treatment recurrence.

resultsPatients with systematic biopsy-detected GG1 cancer had a significantly longer median time to treatment (31 months) than those with targeted biopsy-detected GG2 cancer (4 months; P < 0.0001). Risk of recurrence after curative treatment was similar in the two groups, with the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) excluding any significant difference (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.75-1.43; P = 0.83).

conclusionMen diagnosed with GG2 PCa based on MRI-targeted biopsy had a similar risk of recurrence after treatment compared to men with GG1 disease diagnosed using systematic biopsy, although they were more likely to undergo curative treatment. These findings suggest that at least a portion of the apparent increase in GG2 diagnoses in the MRI era may reflect reclassification rather than more aggressive disease. Improved risk stratification is needed to identify which men with MRI-era GG2 cancer may be suitable for active surveillance.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAgedBiopsyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentGG2magnetic resonance imagingneoplasm gradingrecurrencesurvivalwatchful waiting

Identifiers

PMID41392525
PMCPMC12907778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.