ArticleBJU international2026
Urologist and radiologist contributions to variation in prostate cancer detection at fusion biopsy.
Article in BJU international, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo quantify the relative contribution of radiologists and urologists to variability in clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) detection across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided prostate fusion biopsies and to determine whether this differed across Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS) categories. SUBJECTS, PATIENTS AND
methodsWe analysed biopsy-naïve men within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) who underwent fusion biopsy between August 2017 and November 2021. The primary outcome was the proportion of variance in CSPC detection (Gleason score ≥3 + 4) at targeted regions of interest that was explained by individual urologists and radiologists. We used generalised linear mixed-effects models to partition variance and estimate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for radiologist- and urologist-level effects for PI-RADS score 3-5 lesions. We calculated the median odds ratio (MOR) to quantify the expected difference in odds of CSPC detection when comparing a randomly selected higher- vs lower-detecting provider from the same distribution.
resultsAmong 1544 men with 2045 targeted lesions, mpMRIs were interpreted by 115 radiologists and biopsies performed by 86 urologists. For PI-RADS score 3 lesions, urologists (ICC = 0.15, MOR = 2.07) accounted for greater variance in CSPC detection than radiologists (ICC = 0.07, MOR = 1.61). For PI-RADS score 4, both urologist (ICC = 0.05, MOR = 1.49) and radiologist (ICC = 0.07, MOR = 1.61) contributed modestly. For PI-RADS score 5, radiologists (ICC = 0.17, MOR = 2.19) explained a larger proportion of variance than urologists (ICC = 0.01, MOR = 1.19), suggesting individual radiologists meaningfully impact CSPC detection of high-risk lesions.
conclusionsFor PI-RADS score 3 lesions, the specific urologist performing the biopsy was a strong source of variation, while for PI-RADS score 5 lesions, the radiologist had greater influence on CSPC detection rates. Optimising MRI acquisition and interpretation, ensuring accurate fusion registration, and improving biopsy accuracy are critical to improving diagnostic consistency.
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.