ArticleThe Prostate2026
Diagnostic Value of Rapid On-Site Evaluation Combined With Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer.
Article in The Prostate, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Value of Rapid On-Site Evaluation Combined With Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer.The Prostate · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the application value of Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) in prostate biopsy.
methodsAll consecutive subjects who attended our clinic to underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion biopsy due to highly suspicious findings on MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) and met the inclusion criteria were enrolled into our prospective study between October 2020 and January 2025. ROSE was performed concurrently in the same operating room with MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy. For each lesion with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4-5, one to two additional needle passes were taken for ROSE, in addition to the standard biopsy. The results of ROSE during the biopsy were recorded. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ROSE were assessed using paraffin-embedded histopathology of the biopsy specimens as the gold standard.
resultsA total of 313 lesions with PI-RADS 4-5 from 147 patients were ultimately included in this study. All biopsies were performed smoothly, with no severe complications occurring postoperatively. 192 lesions were pathologically diagnosed with PCa, yielding a positive detection rate of 61.3% (192/313). With paraffin-embedded histopathology of the biopsy specimens serving as the gold standard, the sensitivity of ROSE for detecting PCa was 71.9% (138/192), specificity was 100% (121/121), accuracy was 82.7% (259/313), positive predictive value was 100% (138/138), and negative predictive value was 69.1% (121/175).
conclusionsThe application of ROSE technology in the diagnosis during prostate biopsy is accurate and reliable, with specificity and positive predictive value both reaching 100%.
Indexed as
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.