Trial reportBMC cancer2026
Clinical value of intraoperative frozen section examination-assisted strategy in prostate biopsy: a comparative study of diagnostic efficiency and clinical practicality.
Trial report in BMC cancer, 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
Abstract
objectivePerforming targeted biopsy (TB) first, followed by intraoperative frozen section examination (IFSE), and omitting systematic biopsy (SB) when prostate cancer is detected may reduce the number of unnecessary biopsy cores from SB while maintaining an equivalent prostate cancer detection rate.
methodsPatients scheduled for mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy due to a PIRADS score ≥ 4 were prospectively enrolled between October 2023 and November 2025. Patients were randomly assigned to a control group (TB + SB) or an observation group using a random number table. In the observation group, TB was performed first, and the obtained specimens were immediately subjected to IFSE. If the result was positive, no further cores were taken; if negative, SB was subsequently performed. The positive detection rate, complication rates, and post-radical prostatectomy (RARP) pathological findings were compared between the two groups.
resultsA total of 195 and 187 patients were included in the control and observation groups, respectively. The overall positive biopsy rate was 80.51% (157/195) in the control group and 78.61% (147/187) in the observation group, with no significant statistical difference (P = 0.645). The clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates were 67.69% (132/195) and 69.52% (130/187) in the control and observation groups, respectively, showing no significant difference (P = 0.701). The mean number of biopsy cores was 23.89 ± 6.42 in the control group and 8.27 ± 8.90 in the observation group, which was significantly lower than the control group (P < 0.001). In the observation group, 50 patients (26.74%) underwent immediate additional SB, and 10 (5.35%) had Routine pathology positive for prostate cancer, including 5 with csPCa. The mean time to obtain the final pathology report was 0.025 (0.023,4) days in the observation group, significantly shorter than the 4 (4,5) days in the control group (P < 0.001). The VAS pain score was also significantly lower in the observation group compared to the control group (2.52 ± 1.52 vs. 2.91 ± 1.59, P = 0.014). Among patients who subsequently underwent RARP, there were no significant differences between the control and observation groups in terms of pathological upgrading/downgrading (44.19% vs. 38.24%) or positive surgical margin rates (25.58% vs. 23.53%) (all P > 0.05).
conclusionFor patients with suspected prostate cancer, the novel biopsy model based on IFSE may be a feasible option. It can maintain a comparable prostate cancer detection rate while significantly reducing the number of biopsy cores, and shows no oncological disadvantage at the time of RARP.
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.