The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest to implement multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) for biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: Primary objective was to compare and evaluate an MRI pathway and a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) pathway in biopsy-naïve men with prostate-specific antigen levels of ≥3ng/ml. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION: A prospective, multicenter, powered, comparative effectiveness study included 626 biopsy-naïve patients (from February 2015 to February 2018). INTERVENTION: All patients underwent prebiopsy mpMRI followed by systematic TRUSGB. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI also underwent MRGB prior to TRUSGB. MRGB was performed using the in-bore approach. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥3+4) in any core. The main secondary objectives were the number of men who could avoid biopsy after nonsuspicious mpMRI, the number of biopsy cores taken, and oncologic follow-up. Differences in proportions were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals for differences of proportions with matched pairs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The MRI pathway detected csPCa in 159/626 (25%) patients and insignificant prostate cancer (insignPCa) in 88/626 patients (14%). TRUSGB detected csPCa in 146/626 patients (23%) and insignPCa in 155/626 patients (25%). Relative sensitivity of the MRI pathway versus the TRUSGB pathway was 1.09 for csPCa (p=0.17) and 0.57 for insignPCa (p<0.0001). The total number of biopsy cores reduced from 7512 to 849 (-89%). The MRI pathway enabled biopsy avoidance in 309/626 (49%) patients due to nonsuspicious mpMRI. Immediate TRUSGB detected csPCa in only 3% (10/309) of these patients, increasing to 4% (13/309) with 1-yr follow-up. At the same time, TRUSGB would overdetect insignPCa in 20% (63/309). "Focal saturation" by four additional perilesional cores to MRGB improved the detection of csPCa in 21/317 (7%) patients. Compared with the literature, our proportion of nonsuspicious mpMRI cases is significantly higher (27-36% vs 49%) and that of equivocal cases is lower (15-28% vs 6%). This is probably due to the high-quality standard in this study. Therefore, a limitation is the duplication of these results in less experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: In biopsy-naïve men, the MRI pathway compared with the TRUSGB pathway results in an identical detection rate of csPCa, with significantly fewer insignPCa cases. In this high-quality standard study, almost half of men have nonsuspicious MRI, which is higher compared with other studies. Not performing TRUS biopsy is at the cost of missing csPCa only in 4%. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MRI-guided biopsy against standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Our results show that patients can benefit from MRI because biopsy may be omitted in half of men, and fewer indolent cancers are detected, without compromising the detection of harmful disease. Men also need fewer needles to make a diagnosis.
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
Computing inter‐rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement
Gwet, K. L. (2008) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1348/000711006x126600 · Cited by 2,167
Cited by
Cornford, P., van den Bergh, R. C. N., Briers, E., Van den Broeck, T., Brunckhorst, O., Darraugh, J., Eberli, D., De Meerleer, G., De Santis, M., Farolfi, A., et al. (2024) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027 · Cited by 1,246
Self-citationDrost, 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
- van der Leest, M., Cornel, E., Israël, B., Hendriks, R., Padhani, A. R., Hoogenboom, M., Zamecnik, P., Bakker, D., Setiasti, A. Y., Veltman, J., van den Hout, H., van der Lelij, H., van Oort, I., Klaver, S., Debruyne, F., Sedelaar, M., Hannink, G., Rovers, M., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C., & Barentsz, J. O.
- Venue
- European Urology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-04
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 570-578
- ISSN
- 0302-2838 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2900548778
- Cited by
- 777
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 54.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
- The paper
- van der Leest, M., Cornel, E., Israël, B., Hendriks, R., Padhani, A. R., Hoogenboom, M., Zamecnik, P., Bakker, D., Setiasti, A. Y., Veltman, J., van den Hout, H., van der Lelij, H., van Oort, I., Klaver, S., Debruyne, F., Sedelaar, M., Hannink, G., Rovers, M., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C., & Barentsz, J. O. (2019). Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. European Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
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.