ArticleBMC urology2026
Added value of systematic biopsy in patients with positive MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer: a single-center 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the added value of systematic biopsy (SB) in patients with positive targeted biopsy (TB) in the context of transperineal MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy, specifically focusing on clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and to identify characteristics of patients who may benefit from a TB-only strategy.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 260 patients who underwent transperineal MRI-US fusion biopsy (4-core TB plus 12-core SB) at Nantong First People’s Hospital between May 2024 and November 2025. All patients had positive TB results for prostate cancer. SB zero-benefit for csPCa was defined as TB detecting csPCa (Grade Group ≥ 2) while SB detecting no csPCa (either negative or only Grade Group 1). Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze predictors of SB zero-benefit. A predictive model was constructed and validated using Bootstrap (2000 resamples). Model performance was assessed using ROC curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsAmong 260 patients with TB-detected csPCa, 25 (9.6%) exhibited SB zero-benefit for csPCa. Compared with the SB-positive group (n = 235), the SB zero-benefit group exhibited significantly larger prostate volume, lower PSAD, smaller lesion size, and a distribution toward lower-risk PI-RADS scores. Multivariate analysis revealed that lesion size (OR = 0.802, 95%CI: 0.657–0.978, P = 0.030) and PI-RADS score (4 vs. 3: OR = 0.022, P < 0.001; 5 vs. 3: OR = 0.027, P = 0.013) were independent predictors of SB zero-benefit. The predictive model demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC = 0.910, 95%CI: 0.851–0.968; bootstrap-corrected AUC = 0.892) with acceptable calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = 0.503). At the optimal cutoff (predicted probability = 0.122), sensitivity of 84.0%, specificity of 87.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.1%. If SB had been omitted, 25 patients (9.6%) with csPCa detected only by SB would have been missed, while TB alone detected 100% of csPCa in this cohort. DCA showed higher net benefit across threshold probabilities of 0.1–0.9 compared to the “biopsy-all” strategy.
conclusionsApproximately 10% of patients with TB-detected csPCa exhibited SB zero-benefit, characterized by small lesions (≤ 11 mm) and low PI-RADS scores (3–4). The predictive model based on lesion size and PI-RADS effectively identified patients with low SB value (NPV 98.1%) in this internal validation. However, given the single-center retrospective design, small event number (n = 25), lack of external validation, and the 9.6% miss rate if SB were omitted, this model requires prospective multicenter validation before clinical implementation. For patients at initial diagnosis, a transperineal TB-only strategy may warrant further prospective validation in selected patients with PI-RADS 3–4 lesions ≤ 11 mm, whereas PI-RADS 5 lesions should undergo combined biopsy given the risk of false-positive MRI findings and the need for maximal cancer characterization. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.