Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42098482›Full record

ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026

[Reducing overdiagnosis-how to do I correctly assess the indication for prostate biopsy?]

Felix Seelemeyer, Rouvier Al-Monajjed, Muammar Dib, Jale Lakes, Isabelle Busshoff, Analena Handke, Matthias Boschheidgen, Gerald Antoch, Peter Albers, Jan Philipp Radtke and 1 more

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Felix SeelemeyerKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Rouvier Al-MonajjedKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland. rouvier.al-monajjed@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
Muammar DibKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Jale LakesKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Isabelle BusshoffKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Analena HandkeKlinik für Urologie, Marien Hospital Herne, Universitätsklinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Herne, Deutschland.
Matthias BoschheidgenKlinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Gerald AntochKlinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Peter AlbersKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Jan Philipp RadtkeKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Lars SchimmöllerKlinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

OverdiagnosisProstateProstatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorBiopsyClinical RelevanceHumansMaleMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstate-Specific AntigenBiomarkers, TumorProstate-Specific AntigenBiomarkersBiopsyEarly diagnosisProstate cancerProstate-specific antigen

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.