↓ Skip to main content

Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer?

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer?
Published in
World Journal of Urology, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00345-018-2337-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel A. Gold, Graham R. Hale, Jonathan B. Bloom, Clayton P. Smith, Kareem N. Rayn, Vladimir Valera, Bradford J. Wood, Peter L. Choyke, Baris Turkbey, Peter A. Pinto

Abstract

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has improved clinicians' ability to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Combining or fusing these images with the real-time imaging of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) allows urologists to better sample lesions with a targeted biopsy (Tbx) leading to the detection of greater rates of csPCa and decreased rates of low-risk PCa. In this review, we evaluate the technical aspects of the mpMRI-guided Tbx procedure to identify possible sources of error and provide clinical context to a negative Tbx. A literature search was conducted of possible reasons for false-negative TBx. This includes discussion on false-positive mpMRI findings, termed "PCa mimics," that may incorrectly suggest high likelihood of csPCa as well as errors during Tbx resulting in inexact image fusion or biopsy needle placement. Despite the strong negative predictive value associated with Tbx, concerns of missed disease often remain, especially with MR-visible lesions. This raises questions about what to do next after a negative Tbx result. Potential sources of error can arise from each step in the targeted biopsy process ranging from "PCa mimics" or technical errors during mpMRI acquisition to failure to properly register MRI and TRUS images on a fusion biopsy platform to technical or anatomic limits on needle placement accuracy. A better understanding of these potential pitfalls in the mpMRI-guided Tbx procedure will aid interpretation of a negative Tbx, identify areas for improving technical proficiency, and improve both physician understanding of negative Tbx and patient-management options.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 17 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 25 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,371,542
of 23,073,835 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,271
of 2,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,111
of 330,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#39
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,073,835 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.