The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance‐ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance (MR)‐ultrasound‐guided fusion biopsy in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP). METHODS: A total of 1042 men underwent multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) and fusion biopsy consecutively in a prospective trial (2009‐2014). An expert reader graded mpMRI regions of interest (ROIs) as 1 to 5 using published protocols. The fusion biopsy device was used to obtain targeted cores from ROIs (when present) followed by a fusion image‐guided, 12‐core systematic biopsy in all men, even if no suspicious ROI was noted. The primary endpoint of the study was the detection of csCaP (ie, Gleason score ≥ 7). RESULTS: Among 825 men with ≥ 1 suspicious ROI of ≥ grade 3, 289 (35%) were found to have csCaP. Powerful predictors of csCaP were ROI grade (grade 5 vs grade 3: odds ratio, 6.5 [P<.01]) and prostate‐specific antigen density (each increase of 0.05 ng/mL/cc: odds ratio, 1.4 [P<.01]). Combining systematic and targeted biopsies resulted in the detection of more patients with csCaP (289 patients) than targeting (229 patients) or systematic (199 patients) biopsy alone. Among patients with no suspicious ROI, 35 (16%) were found to have csCaP on systematic biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective trial, MR‐ultrasound fusion biopsy allowed for the detection of csCaP, with a direct relationship noted with ROI grade and prostate‐specific antigen density. The combination of targeted and systematic biopsy detected more csCaP than either modality alone; systematic biopsies revealed csCaP in 16% of men with no suspicious MRI target. The advantages of this new biopsy method are apparent, but issues of cost, training, and reliability await resolution before its widespread adoption. Cancer 2016;122:884–92. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
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
Cites
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., et al. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17942 · Cited by 1,505
Accuracy of Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Meta-Analysis
de Rooij, M., Hamoen, E. H. J., Fütterer, J. J., Barentsz, J. O., & Rovers, M. M. (2014) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.13.11046 · Cited by 470
Pinto, P. A., Chung, P. H., Rastinehad, A. R., Baccala, A. A., Kruecker, J., Benjamin, C. J., Xu, S., Yan, P., Kadoury, S., Chua, C., et al. (2011) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.078 · Cited by 450
Sonn, G. A., Chang, E., Natarajan, S., Margolis, D. J., Macairan, M., Lieu, P., Huang, J., Dorey, F. J., Reiter, R. E., & Marks, L. S. (2014) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025 · Cited by 371
Self-citationRisacher, S. L., McDonald, B. C., Tallman, E. F., West, J. D., Farlow, M. R., Unverzagt, F. W., Gao, S., Boustani, M., Crane, P. K., Petersen, R. C., et al. (2016) · JAMA Neurology · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.0580 · Cited by 350
Buser, N., Ivic, S., Kessler, T. M., Kessels, A. G. H., & Bachmann, L. M. (2012) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.060 · Cited by 167
Türkbey, B., Merino, M. J., Gallardo, E. C., Shah, V. P., Aras, Ö., Bernardo, M., Mena, E., Daar, D., Rastinehad, A. R., Linehan, W. M., et al. (2013) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.24317 · Cited by 153
Abd-Alazeez, M., Ahmed, H. U., Arya, M., et al. (2013) · Urologic Oncology Seminars and Original Investigations · doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.06.007 · Cited by 132
Targeted Prostate Biopsy to Select Men for Active Surveillance: Do the Epstein Criteria Still Apply?
Hu, J. C., Chang, E., Natarajan, S., Margolis, D., Macairan, M., Lieu, P., Huang, J., Sonn, G. A., Dorey, F. J., & Marks, L. S. (2014) · The Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.005 · Cited by 126
Self-citationAutonomic nervous control of the urinary bladder
Ochodnický, P., Uvelius, B., Andersson, K., & Michel, M. C. (2012) · Acta Physiologica · doi:10.1111/apha.12010 · Cited by 46
Cited by
Drost, F.-J. H., Osses, D. F., Nieboer, D., Steyerberg, E. W., Bangma, C. H., Roobol, M. J., & Schoots, I. G. (2019) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012663.pub2 · Cited by 640
Sathianathen, N. J., Omer, A., Harriss, E., Davies, L., Kasivisvanathan, V., Punwani, S., Moore, C. M., Kastner, C., Barrett, T., Van Den Bergh, R. C., et al. (2020) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Filson, C. P., Natarajan, S., Margolis, D. J. A., Huang, J., Lieu, P., Dorey, F. J., Reiter, R. E., & Marks, L. S.
- Venue
- Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-01-07
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 884-892
- ISSN
- 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0142
- OpenAlex
- W2230472428
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 58.79
- 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: Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance‐ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.29874
- The paper
- Filson, C. P., Natarajan, S., Margolis, D. J. A., Huang, J., Lieu, P., Dorey, F. J., Reiter, R. E., & Marks, L. S. (2016). Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance‐ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29874
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.
