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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x · Cited by 9,795
Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., Swinburn, P., & Busschbach, J. (2013) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4 · Cited by 1,582
Brimo, F., Schultz, L., & Epstein, J. I. (2010) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.021 · Cited by 80
Cited by
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2021) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21654 · Cited by 16,522
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2022) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21708 · Cited by 17,196
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Wagle, N. S., & Jemal, A. (2023) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21763 · Cited by 16,303
Siegel, R. L., Giaquinto, A. N., & Jemal, A. (2024) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21820 · Cited by 9,533
Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: Clinical challenges and applications
Bi, W. L., Hosny, A., Schabath, M. B., Giger, M. L., Birkbak, N. J., Mehrtash, A., Allison, T., Arnaout, O., Abbosh, C., Dunn, I. F., et al. (2019) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21552 · Cited by 1,846
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
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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.