ArticleBJUI compass2026
Omission of contralateral biopsies in unilateral MRI-suspicious prostate cancer has minimal impact on clinical risk assessment.
Article in BJUI compass, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are template prostate biopsies still required in patients with high-risk PI-RADS lesions? A retrospective study of 470 patients.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Omission of contralateral biopsies in unilateral MRI-suspicious prostate cancer has minimal impact on clinical risk assessment.BJUI compass · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: MRI-targeted biopsies (TBx) combined with systematic biopsies (SBx) have traditionally been recommended for patients with unilateral MRI-suspicious prostate cancer (PCa) lesions. Recent European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines propose that, in cases with a solitary lesion, TBx with perilesional sampling may suffice, potentially omitting contralateral SBx. The clinical impact of this omission remains uncertain. This study evaluates how omitting contralateral SBx affects pathological grading, EAU risk classification, and estimated lymph node involvement (LNI). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2016-2024) including 190 biopsy-naïve men diagnosed with PCa via TBx and bilateral SBx for a single, unilateral MRI-visible lesion. Outcomes were re-evaluated using only TBx and ipsilateral SBx, simulating omission of contralateral SBx. Changes in ISUP grade, EAU risk group, and LNI probability using the Briganti 2019, Amsterdam-Brisbane-Sydney (ABS), and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomograms were assessed. Furthermore, we compared cancer detection rates for TBx alone versus TBx plus ipsilateral SBx. Key Findings: ISUP grading changed in 14 of 190 patients (7.4%) when contralateral SBx was omitted; two patients (1.1%) had clinically significant PCa (ISUP 2) detected solely in contralateral cores. In seven patients (3.7%), only ISUP 1 cancer was found in contralateral SBx, meaning no diagnosis would have been made without those cores. EAU risk classification changed in five patients (2.6%). LNI estimates were affected minimally: One patient (0.5%) dropped below the Briganti 7% threshold, and one patient (1.2%) no longer met the 8% ABS threshold. The MSKCC model showed a statistically significant 8% increase in patients above the 7% ePLND threshold when contralateral SBx was omitted ( Conclusion and Clinical Implications: Omitting contralateral SBx in patients with unilateral MRI lesions had limited effect on grading, risk classification, and LNI estimates. However, ipsilateral SBx adds significant diagnostic value compared with TBx alone and should be retained. These findings support a more targeted diagnostic approach in patients with a unilateral lesion on MRI in a primary diagnostic setting.
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.