The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of MR/Ultrasound Fusion–Guided Biopsy With Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Targeted magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy has been shown to detect prostate cancer. The implications of targeted biopsy alone vs standard extended-sextant biopsy or the 2 modalities combined are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess targeted vs standard biopsy and the 2 approaches combined for the diagnosis of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study of 1003 men undergoing both targeted and standard biopsy concurrently from 2007 through 2014 at the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Patients were referred for elevated level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or abnormal digital rectal examination results, often with prior negative biopsy results. Risk categorization was compared among targeted and standard biopsy and, when available, whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy as the "gold standard." INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging to identify regions of prostate cancer suspicion followed by targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy and concurrent standard biopsy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary objective was to compare targeted and standard biopsy approaches for detection of high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3); secondary end points focused on detection of low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 or low-volume 3 + 4) and the biopsy ability to predict whole-gland pathology at prostatectomy. RESULTS: Targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy diagnosed 461 prostate cancer cases, and standard biopsy diagnosed 469 cases. There was exact agreement between targeted and standard biopsy in 690 men (69%) undergoing biopsy. Targeted biopsy diagnosed 30% more high-risk cancers vs standard biopsy (173 vs 122 cases, P < .001) and 17% fewer low-risk cancers (213 vs 258 cases, P < .001). When standard biopsy cores were combined with the targeted approach, an additional 103 cases (22%) of mostly low-risk prostate cancer were diagnosed (83% low risk, 12% intermediate risk, and 5% high risk). The predictive ability of targeted biopsy for differentiating low-risk from intermediate- and high-risk disease in 170 men with whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy was greater than that of standard biopsy or the 2 approaches combined (area under the curve, 0.73, 0.59, and 0.67, respectively; P < .05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among men undergoing biopsy for suspected prostate cancer, targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy, compared with standard extended-sextant ultrasound-guided biopsy, was associated with increased detection of high-risk prostate cancer and decreased detection of low-risk prostate cancer. Future studies will be needed to assess the ultimate clinical implications of targeted biopsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00102544.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Learning deep similarity metric for 3D MR–TRUS image registration
Haskins, G., Kruecker, J., Kruger, U., Xu, S., Pinto, P. A., Wood, B. J., & Yan, P. (2019) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-018-1875-7 · Cited by 140
Self-citationAdversarial Image Registration with Application for MR and TRUS Image Fusion
Yan, P., Xu, S., Rastinehad, A. R., & Wood, B. J. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00919-9_23 · Cited by 100
Self-citationFendler, W. P., Calais, J., Eiber, M., Simko, J. P., Kurhanewicz, J., Santos, R. D., Feng, F. Y., Reiter, R. E., Rettig, M. B., Nickols, N. G., et al. (2021) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-020-04945-1 · Cited by 56
Azizi, S., Bayat, S., Yan, P., Tahmasebi, A., Nir, G., Kwak, J. T., Xu, S., Wilson, S., Iczkowski, K. A., Lucia, M. S., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-017-1627-0 · Cited by 47
Self-citationA urologist’s perspective on prostate cancer imaging: past, present, and future
George, A. K., Turkbey, B., Valayil, S. G., Muthigi, A., Mertan, F., Kongnyuy, M., & Pinto, P. A. (2016) · Abdominal Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00261-016-0751-6 · Cited by 30
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Siddiqui, M. M., Rais-Bahrami, S., Turkbey, B., George, A. K., Rothwax, J., Shakir, N., Okoro, C., Raskolnikov, D., Parnes, H. L., Linehan, W. M., Merino, M. J., Simon, R. M., Choyke, P. L., Wood, B. J., & Pinto, P. A.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2015-01-27
- Volume
- 313
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 390
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2146373036
- Cited by
- 1,505
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 166.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of MR/Ultrasound Fusion–Guided Biopsy With Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2014.17942
- The paper
- Siddiqui, M. M., Rais-Bahrami, S., Turkbey, B., George, A. K., Rothwax, J., Shakir, N., Okoro, C., Raskolnikov, D., Parnes, H. L., Linehan, W. M., Merino, M. J., Simon, R. M., Choyke, P. L., Wood, B. J., & Pinto, P. A. (2015). Comparison of MR/Ultrasound Fusion–Guided Biopsy With Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17942
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.