ArticleBMC urology2026
Anatomical approach in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography fusion biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a cross-sectional 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComparisons between the transperineal (TP) and the transrectal (TR) approach for prostate biopsies in detecting cancer have been reported; however, there are no reports comparing the cancer detection rates using an anatomical approach. In this study, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US) fusion prostate biopsies were compared between the TP and the TR approaches for detecting cancer at the target sites.
methodsThe MRI/US fusion prostate biopsies were performed between November 2016 and October 2021. There were 251 and 200 patients in the TP and TR groups, respectively. Age, serum prostate specific antigen level, prostate volume, number of biopsies, target site (anterior, posterior, apex, lateral, base, middle), cancer detection rate, and the Gleason Grading Group classification were examined.
resultsThere were 154 and 101 target sites in the TP and TR groups for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 4–5. Significantly higher cancer detection rates were noted for PI-RADS category 4–5 lesions than for category 3 lesions in both the TP and TR groups (p < 0.001). The cancer detection rates for category 4–5 lesions in the TP and TR groups were 94.4% and 73.3% (p = 0.036), 92.3% and 64.7% (p = 0.017), 69.4% and 93.3% (p = 0.055), and 66.7% and 89.3% (p = 0.010) at the anterior, apex, lateral, and posterior sites, respectively.
conclusionsThe cancer detection rate was significantly different between the TP and TR groups at the anterior, apex, and posterior sites. These differences may be due to the sampling deflection of the needle on the posterior site in the TP group and on the apex and anterior sites in the TR group. These results suggest that urologists should be mindful of the benefits for each patient by considering the advantages with each approach.
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.