The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate Cancer Detection: Comparison of Random and Targeted Biopsies
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the accuracy of visual targeted biopsies vs computerized transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging registration using a rigid (Esaote®, nondeformable) or elastic (Koelis®, deformable) approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 391 consecutive patients with suspected localized prostate cancer were prospectively included in analysis. All patients underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging, followed by 10 to 12-core random prostate biopsies. When magnetic resonance imaging detected suspicious findings, targeted biopsy was performed, including visual, rigid system and elastic system targeted biopsies in the first 127 patients, the next 131 and the last 133, respectively. Cancer detection rates were assessed by conditional logistic regression. Targeted biopsies alone and random biopsies were further compared for the amount of tissue sampled and microfocal cancer detection, the latter defined as a single core with 5 mm or less of Gleason 6 cancer. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and random biopsy detection rates were similar among the groups. Magnetic resonance imaging detected at least 1 suspicious area in 54 (42%), 78 (59%) and 82 patients (62%) in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The cancer detection rates of rigid and elastic system targeted biopsies were significantly higher than the random biopsy rate (p = 0.0065 and 0.0016, respectively). Visual targeted biopsy did not perform better than random biopsy (p = 0.66). Rigid and elastic system targeted biopsies allowed for decreasing the number of cores and the detection of microfocal cancer, while increasing the detection of high grade cancer. CONCLUSIONS: When performed with computerized magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound image registration, targeted biopsy alone improved cancer detection over random biopsies, decreased the detection rate of microfocal cancer and increased the detection rate of cancer with a Gleason score of greater than 6.
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
Screening and Prostate-Cancer Mortality in a Randomized European Study
Schröder, F. H., Hugosson, J., Roobol, M. J., Tammela, T. L. J., Ciatto, S., Nelen, V., Kwiatkowski, M., Lujan, M., Lilja, H., Zappa, M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0810084 · Cited by 4,014
Tofts, P. S., Brix, G., Buckley, D. L., Evelhoch, J. L., Henderson, E., Knopp, M. V., Larsson, H. B. W., Lee, T.-Y., Mayr, N. A., Parker, G. J. M., et al. (1999) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199909)10:3<223::aid-jmri2>3.0.co;2-s · Cited by 3,143
ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012
Barentsz, J. O., Richenberg, J., Clements, R., Choyke, P., Verma, S., Villeirs, G., Rouviere, O., Logager, V., & Fütterer, J. J. (2012) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y · Cited by 2,438
Stamey, T. A., Freiha, F. S., McNeal, J. E., Redwine, E. A., Whittemore, A. S., & Schmid, H.-P. (1993) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19930201)71:3+<933::aid-cncr2820711408>3.0.co;2-l · Cited by 799
Nam, R. K., Saskin, R., Lee, Y., Liu, Y., Law, C., Klotz, L. H., Loblaw, D. A., Trachtenberg, J., Stanimirovic, A., Simor, A. E., et al. (2013) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.015 · Cited by 592
Eichler, K., Hempel, S., Wilby, J., Myers, L., Bachmann, L. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2006) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00957-2 · Cited by 518
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
Nam, R. K., Saskin, R., Lee, Y., Liu, Y., Law, C., Klotz, L. H., Loblaw, D. A., Trachtenberg, J., Stanimirovic, A., Simor, A. E., et al. (2010) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.043 · Cited by 402
Walsh, P. C., DeWeese, T. L., & Eisenberger, M. A. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcp0706784 · Cited by 321
Hambrock, T., Hoeks, C., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C., Scheenen, T., Fütterer, J., Bouwense, S., van Oort, I., Schröder, F., Huisman, H., & Barentsz, J. (2012) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.042 · Cited by 307
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
Valerio, M., Donaldson, I., Emberton, M., Ehdaie, B., Hadaschik, B. A., Marks, L. S., Mozer, P., Rastinehad, A. R., & Ahmed, H. U. (2015) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.026 · Cited by 458
A 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Delongchamps, N. B., Peyromaure, M., Schull, A., Beuvon, F., Bouazza, N., Flam, T., Zerbib, M., Muradyan, N., Legman, P., & Cornud, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 189
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 493-499
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W1985530785
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 20.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate Cancer Detection: Comparison of Random and Targeted Biopsies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.195
- The paper
- Delongchamps, N. B., Peyromaure, M., Schull, A., Beuvon, F., Bouazza, N., Flam, T., Zerbib, M., Muradyan, N., Legman, P., & Cornud, F. (2013). Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate Cancer Detection: Comparison of Random and Targeted Biopsies. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.195
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.
