ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Is targeted biopsy necessary for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions?
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
objectiveThe aim of this study was to reveal the histopathological results of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions and to investigate whether targeted biopsy is essential in these lesions.
methodsOne hundred and twenty-seven patients with 176 lesions, being categorized as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1, who underwent transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy were included in the study.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 62.4 years. The median of prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen density, free prostate-specific antigen, and free/total prostate-specific antigen were 6.64 ng/mL, 0.10 ng/mL2, 1.24 ng/mL, and 0.18 ng/mL, respectively. In patient- and lesion-based analysis, the prevalence of adenocarcinoma was 12.7 and 9%, and clinically significant prostate cancer was 2.3 and 1.7%, respectively. The rate of prostate cancer detected by systematic biopsy alone was 7.8%, and 1.5% of these were clinically significant. There was no significant difference in prostate-specific antigen or prostate-specific antigen density between patients with histopathologically malignant and benign Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions (p≥0.233). prostate-specific antigen density was higher in malignant patients, considering only 89 patients with index lesion P3 (p=0.046). Family history was significantly higher in malignant patients (p=0.028).
conclusionSince clinically significant prostate cancer is very low in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions, clinical findings and risk factors should be considered in the biopsy decision in patients with index lesion Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3. However, in patients with index lesions Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 and 5, targeting these Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 areas might be important with regard to the extent of the disease.
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.