ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Clinical significance of the combined systematic 12-core with concomitant MRI image-guided targeted prostate biopsy: can the MRI targeted biopsy stand on its own?
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
purposeTo determine whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image-guided biopsy (Targeted Bx) is accurate enough to replace the Combined Targeted Bx and systematic template 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (Systematic Bx) in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA, Gleason score > 6), and if Targeted Bx alone significantly outperforms Systematic Bx. MATERIALS AND
methodsData were collected retrospectively from all patients with MRI Prostate Image Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) level 3 and above that received a Combined Targeted Bx and Systematic Bx from 11/1/22 to 6/8/23 at Virginia Urology, a large community urology group. Patient information was entered into a database and analyzed using Chi-square and t-test.
resultsA total of 474 patients were identified. MRI results showed that 152 (32.1%) cases were PIRADS 3, 218 (46.0%) cases were PIRADS 4, and 104 (21.9%) cases were PIRADS 5. Overall, the combined targeted and systematic biopsy (Combined Bx) detected more clinically significant PCA (294, 62.0%) than the Systematic Bx (231, 48.7%) or Targeted Bx (237, 50.0%) did alone. Isolation of PIRADS 5 alone showed clinical insignificance in the combined biopsy versus the targeted biopsy alone. The systematic and targeted methods are insignificantly different from each other (P > 0.05), across all PIRADS levels.
conclusionsCombined systematic and targeted biopsy was significantly better in the diagnosis of csPCA across PIRADS 3 to 5. For patients with PIRADS 5, combined biopsies were not significantly different from targeted biopsies. We determined that we could not remove the systematic biopsy from our current technique. Additionally, systematic biopsies still perform well in the detection of csPCA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42020630What 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.