ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
The value of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer screening: A retrospective real-world feasibility study.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to correspondence regarding "The value of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer screening: a retrospective real-world feasibility study".Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- From Detection to Surveillance: The Evolving Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Olfactory Science and Technology in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: From Invertebrate Models to Artificial Intelligence.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProstate cancer (PCa) screening is increasingly guided by imaging. High-resolution 29 MHz Micro-Ultrasound (MUS) offers a promising alternative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 682 consecutive men undergoing MUS and PSA testing during routine examination. Biopsy and MRI were performed according to guideline recommendations. PSA density (PSAD)-modified negative MUS included PRI-MUS categories 1, 2, or 3 with PSAD < 0.15 ng/mL
resultsMedian age was 59 years; median PSA 1.2 ng/mL (IQR: 0.6-3.5). Biopsies were performed in 62 men, detecting PCa in 29 (47%), including 18 (29%) clinically significant PCa (csPCa). 88 men (13%) had PSAD-modified positive MUS, yielding 15 csPCa and 7 non-clinically significant PCa (ncsPCa). Among 594 men (87%) with PSAD-modified negative MUS, 3 csPCa and 4 ncsPCa were detected. Compared to PSA-based biopsy indication ≥3 ng/mL, PSAD-modified negative MUS would have avoided 13 negative, missing two csPCa and four ncsPCa. Compared to the MRI-based biopsy indication (PI-RADS ≥ 3, n = 38), PSAD-modified negative MUS (n = 594) would have spared 3 negative biopsies, as well as 17 (24.7% of 69) MRIs due to negative biopsy, while missing 0 cases of csPCa. Additionally, MRI could have been omitted in 1csPCa case and 9 ncsPCa cases with positive MUS, and in 13 csPCa and 7 ncsPCa cases based on PSAD-modified positive MUS. The PSAD-modified-PRI-MUS-based screening pathway showed a 6.29-fold (OR = 0.16) reduction in overdiagnosis and 7.22-fold (OR = 0.14) reduction in negative biopsies/ncsPCa. MUS without PSA demonstrated an OR of 7.30 to detect csPCa. PSAD-modified-PRI-MUS score demonstrated a sensitivity of 83.3%, a specificity of 59.1%, a positive predictive value of 45.5% and a negative predictive value of 89.7% for distinguishing csPCa from benign/ncsPCa findings.
conclusionMUS enables effective PCa risk stratification in an opportunistic screening setting supporting prospective trial development.
trial registrationThis study is part of the PROSTAMUS trial, registered in the DRKS/WHO registry.
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.