A narrative review and update on management following negative prostate biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed using systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. However, given the inherent nature of sampling, a negative biopsy does not exclude clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and continued controversy exists in the optimal management following initial biopsy. Numerous avenues for evaluation include multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), use of molecular biomarkers, repeat biopsy, and observation. RECENT FINDINGS: mpMRI has shown promise in guiding further biopsy management: for individuals with identified target lesions, increased accuracy and detection using combination targeted and systematic sampling has been repeatedly demonstrated in the literature as an effective strategy. For those with negative MRIs and/or negative biomarker (blood, urinary, tissue) studies, increasing evidence has suggested that these individuals may be able to avoid biopsy altogether, albeit at a small risk of missing csPCa. Observation should be based on an individual's risk of csPCa versus their competing health risks, and saturation biopsy reserved for rare cases with high clinical suspicion. SUMMARY: Management following an initial negative prostate biopsy requires careful discussion with the patient, their risk tolerance, and threshold for intervention. Although subject to availability, mpMRI and molecular biomarkers may better risk stratify patients, identify target lesions, and in certain cases, spare biopsy altogether.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".