ArticleEuropean urology open science2026
Diagnostic Value of Transabdominal Ultrasound-based Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Article in European urology open science, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAD) improves risk stratification for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) but depends on prostate volume estimation. Transrectal ultrasound is used widely, whereas transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) is underexplored due to accuracy concerns. We compared PSAD derived from manual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) segmentation, MRI ellipsoid, and TAUS ellipsoid. Methods: In a single-centre retrospective cohort, men who underwent biopsy or prostatectomy with histopathological confirmation were included. (1) Manual MRI segmentation versus (2) ellipsoid formulae derived from MRI and TAUS diameters were compared. We evaluated discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), decision curve net benefit, method agreement, and clinical utility defined by biopsy burden across illustrative PSAD thresholds. Key findings and limitations: Of 486 men, 299 had complete MRI and TAUS data (mean age 71.5 [standard deviation 8.3] yr; median PSA 10.3 ng/ml); 98 (32.8%) had csPCa. Both ellipsoid formula underestimated volume, with TAUS marginally closer to the reference. However, at the illustrative threshold of PSAD = 0.15 ng/ml/cc, the estimated biopsy burden was comparable: 53.5 (manual), 57.2 (MRI), and 56.5 (TAUS) biopsies per 100 men, with identical sensitivity (0.837). Discrimination was similar, with AUCs of 0.83 (manual), 0.82 (MRI), and 0.81 (TAUS), and a decision curve analysis demonstrated overlapping net benefits. The main limitations are the retrospective single-centre design and the lack of external validation. Conclusions and clinical implications: Despite volume differences, PSAD derived from TAUS and MRI ellipsoid formulae demonstrated discrimination and net benefit comparable with those of manual segmentation. TAUS-based PSAD represents a pragmatic alternative for risk stratification, particularly in resource-limited settings where MRI segmentation is infeasible. Patient summary: We compared three ways to measure prostate volume to calculate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density. All three ways showed similar accuracy for finding important prostate cancers, suggesting that ultrasound-based PSA density can be used when detailed magnetic resonance imaging measurements are not practical.
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.