ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Toward a PSMA PET-mpMRI pathway for biopsy decision-making in men with suspected prostate cancer: interim results from the prospective BIOPSTAGE trial.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The BIOPSTAGE trial investigates the added diagnostic value of combining prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for non-invasive detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). This interim analysis aimed to retrospectively optimize semiquantitative PSMA PET thresholds and evaluate potential biopsy reduction through integrated imaging. Methods: In this prospective, single-institution study, 96 men with suspected prostate cancer underwent mpMRI and PSMA PET prior to biopsy. csPCa was defined as ISUP grade group ≥2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis identified optimal thresholds for SUVmax (≥9.1) and SUVratio (≥3.6). Diagnostic performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and biopsy burden) were evaluated for mpMRI, PSMA PET, and their combination. Logistic regression and McNemar's test assessed predictors and comparative accuracy. Results: mpMRI alone achieved a sensitivity of 93.8%, specificity of 54.6%, and an AUC of 0.74. Among the 74 lesions identified by mpMRI, 14 also met semiquantitative PET positivity criteria. An additional 11 PET-positive lesions were detected without corresponding mpMRI abnormalities. Another 60 lesions were mpMRI-positive but PET-negative and would not have been targeted in an integrated strategy. If biopsy had been guided exclusively by PSMA PET-positive lesions, 25 targets would have been sampled-representing an approximately 66.2% reduction compared to 74 lesions identified by mpMRI alone. This biopsy reduction was associated with significantly improved specificity (McNemar's p < 0.001). Integrated imaging diagnostic accuracy was: sensitivity 85.7% (95% CI: 60.1-96.0%), specificity 86.3% (95% CI: 78.0-91.8%), PPV 48.0%, NPV 97.6%. Two small csPCa lesions missed by PSMA PET were PI-RADS 4, ISUP Grade Group 2. One csPCa lesion detected exclusively by PSMA PET was not visible on mpMRI (ISUP Grade Group 3). Conclusions: Integrating semiquantitative PSMA PET with mpMRI improves lesion-level specificity and was associated with a theoretical reduction of approximately two-thirds in the number of targeted biopsy cores, while maintaining high sensitivity. While PSMA PET enhances risk stratification, mpMRI remains essential-particularly for detecting small or PSMA-negative tumors. These interim findings support feasibility of a dual-imaging biopsy triage strategy, pending validation in the full BIOPSTAGE cohort and future multicenter trials.
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.