ArticleBMC urology2026
Is MRI/US-guided fusion biopsy ready to replace systematic biopsy in detecting clinically significant prostate carcinoma? - a retrospective study.
Article in BMC urology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate whether MRI-US-guided FB leads to improved diagnostic accuracy compared to SB and whether SB remains necessary for the detection of csPCa, further assessing whether the TP or TR biopsy approach influences outcomes.
methodsIn this retrospective single-center study, 851patients with PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions on mpMRI underwent combined FB and SB between June 2019 and November 2024. The highest ISUP Grade Group per patient was compared between methods. Discordant findings were analyzed, and csPCa detection rates were compared between TP and TR approaches.
resultsFB detected higher ISUP-GG values in 70.9% of discordant cases. csPCa (ISUP-GG 2–5) was identified in 42.2% of patients with FB compared to 28.5% with SB (p < 0.001), while rates of ciPCa were similar. FB missed PCa (ISUP-GG 1–5) in 6.5% of patients. TP biopsy demonstrated higher csPCa detection than TR biopsy (50.1% vs. 43.0%, p = 0.038).
conclusionFB significantly improves detection of csPCa compared to SB. However, FB cannot yet replace SB as it would miss total PCa in 6.5% of patients, thus the use of both methods together provides the most reliable diagnosis. Further TP approach provides higher csPCa detection and should be preferred when feasible.
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.