The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Whether multiparametric MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and avoids the need for systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive patients remains controversial. We aimed to investigate whether using this approach before biopsy would improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study, done at 16 centres in France, we enrolled patients aged 18-75 years with prostate-specific antigen concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, and with stage T2c or lower prostate cancer. Eligible patients had been referred for prostate multiparametric MRI before a first set of prostate biopsies, with a planned interval of less than 3 months between MRI and biopsies. An operator masked to multiparametric MRI results did a systematic biopsy by obtaining 12 systematic cores and up to two cores targeting hypoechoic lesions. In the same patient, another operator targeted up to two lesions seen on MRI with a Likert score of 3 or higher (three cores per lesion) using targeted biopsy based on multiparametric MRI findings. Patients with negative multiparametric MRI (Likert score ≤2) had systematic biopsy only. The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 or higher (csPCa-A), analysed in all patients who received both systematic and targeted biopsies and whose results from both were available for pathological central review, including patients who had protocol deviations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02485379, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, we enrolled 275 patients. 24 (9%) were excluded from the analysis. 53 (21%) of 251 analysed patients had negative (Likert ≤2) multiparametric MRI. csPCa-A was detected in 94 (37%) of 251 patients. 13 (14%) of these 94 patients were diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, 19 (20%) by targeted biopsy only, and 62 (66%) by both techniques. Detection of csPCa-A by systematic biopsy (29·9%, 95% CI 24·3-36·0) and targeted biopsy (32·3%, 26·5-38·4) did not differ significantly (p=0·38). csPCa-A would have been missed in 5·2% (95% CI 2·8-8·7) of patients had systematic biopsy not been done, and in 7·6% (4·6-11·6) of patients had targeted biopsy not been done. Four grade 3 post-biopsy adverse events were reported (3 cases of prostatitis, and 1 case of urinary retention with haematuria). INTERPRETATION: There was no difference between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy in the detection of ISUP grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer; however, this detection was improved by combining both techniques and both techniques showed substantial added value. Thus, obtaining a multiparametric MRI before biopsy in biopsy-naive patients can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer but does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute.
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
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-citationProstate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Parker, C., Castro, E., Fizazi, K., Heidenreich, A., Ost, P., Procopio, G., Tombal, B., & Gillessen, S. (2020) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011 · Cited by 977
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
Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions
Stabile, A., Giganti, F., Rosenkrantz, A. B., Taneja, S. S., Villeirs, G., Gill, I. S., Allen, C., Emberton, M., Moore, C. M., & Kasivisvanathan, V. (2020) · Nature Reviews Urology · doi:10.1038/s41585-019-0212-4 · Cited by 398
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
- Rouvière, O., Puech, P., Renard-Penna, R., Claudon, M., Roy, C., Mège-Lechevallier, F., Decaussin-Petrucci, M., Dubreuil-Chambardel, M., Magaud, L., Remontet, L., Ruffion, A., Colombel, M., Crouzet, S., Schott, A.-M., Lemaitre, L., Rabilloud, M., Grenier, N., Barry Delongchamps, N., Boutier, R., Bratan, F., Brunelle, S., Camparo, P., Colin, P., Corréas, J.-M., Cornélis, F., Cornud, F., Cros, F., Descotes, J.-L., Eschwege, P., Fiard, G., Fendler, J.-P., Habchi, H., Hallouin, P., Khairoune, A., Lang, H., Lebras, Y., Lefèvre, F., Malavaud, B., Moldovan, P. C., Mottet, N., Mozer, P., Nevoux, P., Pagnoux, G., Pasticier, G., Portalez, D., Potiron, E., Thammavong, A. S., Timsit, M.-O., Viller, A., & Walz, J.
- Venue
- The Lancet Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 100-109
- ISSN
- 1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2901859788
- Cited by
- 1,095
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 69.67
- 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: Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30569-2
- The paper
- Rouvière, O., Puech, P., Renard-Penna, R., Claudon, M., Roy, C., Mège-Lechevallier, F., Decaussin-Petrucci, M., Dubreuil-Chambardel, M., Magaud, L., Remontet, L., Ruffion, A., Colombel, M., Crouzet, S., Schott, A.-M., Lemaitre, L., Rabilloud, M., Grenier, N., Barry Delongchamps, N., Boutier, R., . . . Walz, J. (2019). Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30569-2
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.