ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Reducing overdiagnosis-how to do I correctly assess the indication for prostate biopsy?]
Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The indication for prostate biopsy represents the key interface between prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based early detection and primary diagnostic evaluation in patients with suspected prostate cancer. The aim is to reduce overdiagnosis while ensuring detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade ≥ 2). PSA remains the most important initial test but is limited by low specificity; digital rectal examination provides no relevant additional value. In cases of clinical suspicion, diagnostic work-up includes multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for risk stratification and reduction of unnecessary biopsies. Diagnostic performance depends on image quality and reader expertise. Biparametric MRI may be an alternative under appropriate conditions but does not match the full diagnostic scope of mpMRI. In the presence of suspicious MRI findings, the combination of targeted and systematic biopsy remains the reference standard, with higher detection rates for csPCa but also increased detection of clinically insignificant tumors. Alternative approaches such as perilesional sampling are under investigation. PSA density, serum biomarkers (e.g., 4KScore, Stockholm-3), and risk calculators may further improve prebiopsy selection. This review provides an evidence-based overview and outlines a guideline-conform, risk-adapted diagnostic pathway for biopsy indication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42098482What 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.