ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
Systematic versus perilesional sampling in transperineal MRI-fusion biopsy: is perilesional sampling ready for prime time? A high-volume center analysis.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiparametric MRI has improved prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics. The current standard combines MRI-targeted fusion biopsy (TB) with 12-core systematic biopsy (SB); current guidelines allow replacing SB with perilesional sampling (PB) penumbra to maintain diagnostic performance while reducing biopsy burden.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 314 biopsy-naive men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 lesions who underwent transperineal MRI-fusion biopsy (TB plus 12-core systematic biopsy) under local anesthesia. A simulated PB strategy was evaluated post hoc by selecting four of the twelve systematic cores located in the directly adjacent sectors to the MRI-visible lesion on the standardized PI-RADS sector map and compared with SB. The primary objective was to assess whether PB replicates the diagnostic performance of SB for detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa; ISUP grade group ≥ 2). We also compared biopsy and prostatectomy ISUP-grading, NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) -classification and the Briganti nomogram-based lymph-node metstasis risk. Statistical analyses used R and SPSS, with chi-square or Fisher's exact tests for categorial and t-tests for continuous variables; two-sided p < 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsPCa was detected in 79.9% (251/314) of men, including 68.8% (216/314) with csPCa. TB alone detected 94.4% of csPCa, while SB detected 73.1%. The simulated TB + PB approach achieved 98.0% overall PCa detection and 99.1% csPCa detection (p = 0.48 vs. TB + SB). Concerning the impact on NCCN risk assessment, ISUP grade distribution was comparable across TB-based strategies, whereas SB alone detected fewer cancers and showed a trend towards lower ISUP grades. In the prostatectomy subgroup, ISUP grade concordance did not differ significantly between TB + SB and TB + PB (both 62.0%; p = 1.0). Mean Briganti scores did not differ significantly between TB + SB and TB + PB, with a minimal absolute difference of 0.17%. A 75% reduction of biopsy cores would be reached by a replacement of SB with PB. There was no significant loss of detection for csPCa (ISUP grade group 2-5; 99.1%) and no association with a loss of diagnostic yield for all ISUP grade groups. 11% reduction in detected cases was confined to ISUP grade group 1 (Supplementary Table S2).
conclusionsA TB plus 4-core PB may serve as an efficient alternative to conventional 12-core SB, without a significant reduction in diagnostic accuracy or a change in pretreatment risk assessment while markedly reducing procedural burden and resource use.
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.