Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,091

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis

Open access
Kasivisvanathan, Veeru, Rannikko, Antti S., Borghi, Marcelo, Panebianco, Valeria, Mynderse, Lance A., Vaarala, Markku H., Briganti, Alberto, Budäus, Lars, Hellawell, Giles, Hindley, Richard G., Roobol, Monique J., Eggener, Scott, Ghei, Maneesh, Villers, Arnauld, Bladou, Franck, Villeirs, Geert M., Virdi, Jaspal, Boxler, Silvan, Robert, Grégoire, Singh, Paras B., Venderink, Wulphert, Hadaschik, Boris A., Ruffion, Alain, Hu, Jim C., Margolis, Daniel, Crouzet, Sébastien, Klotz, Laurence, Taneja, Samir S., Pinto, Peter, Gill, Inderbir, Allen, Clare, Giganti, Francesco, Freeman, Alex, Morris, Stephen, Punwani, Shonit, Williams, Norman R., Brew-Graves, Chris, Deeks, Jonathan, Takwoingi, Yemisi, Emberton, Mark, Moore, Caroline M.·2018·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1801993

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 3,091

Metadata

Authors
Kasivisvanathan, V., Rannikko, A. S., Borghi, M., Panebianco, V., Mynderse, L. A., Vaarala, M. H., Briganti, A., Budäus, L., Hellawell, G., Hindley, R. G., Roobol, M. J., Eggener, S., Ghei, M., Villers, A., Bladou, F., Villeirs, G. M., Virdi, J., Boxler, S., Robert, G., Singh, P. B., Venderink, W., Hadaschik, B. A., Ruffion, A., Hu, J. C., Margolis, D., Crouzet, S., Klotz, L., Taneja, S. S., Pinto, P., Gill, I., Allen, C., Giganti, F., Freeman, A., Morris, S., Punwani, S., Williams, N. R., Brew-Graves, C., Deeks, J., Takwoingi, Y., Emberton, M., & Moore, C. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2018-05-10
Volume
378
Issue
19
Pages
1767-1777
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2793905111
Cited by
3,091
References
3
FWCI
227.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1801993
The paper
Kasivisvanathan, V., Rannikko, A. S., Borghi, M., Panebianco, V., Mynderse, L. A., Vaarala, M. H., Briganti, A., Budäus, L., Hellawell, G., Hindley, R. G., Roobol, M. J., Eggener, S., Ghei, M., Villers, A., Bladou, F., Villeirs, G. M., Virdi, J., Boxler, S., Robert, G., . . . Moore, C. M. (2018). MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1801993

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.