ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
Micro-ultrasound versus mpMRI for targeted prostate biopsy: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical integration.
Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. 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
Background: In the era of precision prostate cancer diagnostics, the role of emerging imaging modalities requires redefinition within integrated diagnostic pathways. Micro-ultrasound (mUS) has emerged as a potential alternative to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for targeted prostate biopsy; however, comparative evidence remains methodologically heterogeneous. Objectives: We aimed to re-evaluate the comparative detection performance of mUS versus mpMRI-targeted biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), with particular attention to contemporary evidence and study design considerations. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: A systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane databases was conducted up to February 28, 2026, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to identify studies comparing mUS- and mpMRI-targeted prostate biopsies. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. The primary outcome was the pooled detection ratio (DR) for csPCa, defined as the ratio of detection rates between mUS- and mpMRI-targeted biopsy. Results: Fifteen studies comprising 2,512 patients were included. mUS-targeted biopsy detected csPCa in 654/2181 participants, compared to 691/2391 with mpMRI-targeted biopsy. The pooled DR for csPCa detection was 1.06 (95% CI 0.97-1.15; p=0.20), indicating no significant difference between modalities. Similarly, detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer did not differ significantly (DR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72-1.10; p=0.28). Across studies, heterogeneity in design and potential within-patient correlations were identified as important contextual factors influencing interpretation. The inclusion of the OPTIMUM randomized trial provided complementary evidence from independently assigned diagnostic pathways, supporting the overall consistency of findings. Conclusion: No statistically significant difference was observed between mUS-targeted and mpMRI-targeted biopsies in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Beyond a binary comparison, these findings support a shift toward integrated diagnostic pathways in which mUS may serve as a complementary or alternative tool depending on the clinical context. Further prospective and methodologically robust studies are needed to refine its role in precision prostate cancer diagnostics.
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.