MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408763728 · doi:10.1001/jama.2025.3579

Microultrasonography-Guided vs MRI-Guided Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

2025· article· en· W4408763728 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Kinnaird, Ferdinand Luger, Hannes Cash, Sangeet Ghai, Luis Felipe Urdaneta-Salegui, Christian P. Pavlovich, Joseph Brito, Neal D. Shore, Julian P. Struck, Martin Schostak, Niklas Harland, Moisés Rodriguez-Socarrás, Wayne Brisbane, Giovanni Lughezzani, H. Toledano, Mohammed Salah Ouertani, Petr Macek, Christopher Fung, Wendy Tu, Andreas Gusenleitner, Karsten Günzel, Peter Incze, Arvin K. George, J.G. Pereira, Robert S. Jansen, Joseph Renzulli, Laurence Klotz, Tahir Durmus, Anna L. Heinrichs, A. Schreyer, Hendrik Borgmann, Achot Guyoundouzian, Cohen Eddie, Christian Samtleben, Melis Güer, Jonas Bechstein, Laura Lawaczek, Kathrin Meisterhofer

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreWomen's College HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkOakville-Trafalgar Memorial HospitalMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyProstate cancerProstate biopsyRadiologyTransrectal ultrasonographyProstate-specific antigenRectal examinationProstateCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: High-resolution microultrasonography-guided biopsy is an alternative to MRI fusion-guided biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. Objective: To compare microultrasonography-guided and MRI fusion-guided biopsy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial of biopsy-naive men from 20 centers (8 countries) with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (elevated prostate-specific antigen [PSA] and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings) from December 2021 to September 2024. Interventions: Participants were assigned to receive either microultrasonography-guided biopsy (n = 121), microultrasonography/MRI fusion-guided biopsy (microultrasonography/MRI; n = 226, in which microultrasonography biopsies were performed prior to unblinding the MRI), or MRI/conventional US fusion-guided biopsy (MRI/conventional ultrasonography; n = 331). All participants received synchronous systematic biopsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference in detection of Gleason Grade Group 2 or higher cancers using microultrasonography plus systematic biopsy vs MRI/conventional ultrasonography plus systematic biopsy. The secondary outcome was the difference in detection of Gleason Grade Group 2 or higher cancers found using microultrasonography/MRI plus systematic biopsy vs MRI/conventional ultrasonography plus systematic biopsy. The noninferiority margin was set at 10%. Results: A total of 802 men underwent randomization and 678 underwent biopsy. Median (IQR) age was 65 (59-70) years and prostate-specific antigen level was 6.9 (5.2-9.8) ng/mL; 83% self-identified as White. Gleason Grade Group 2 or higher cancer was detected in 57 participants (47.1%) in the microultrasonography group, in 141 (42.6%) in the MRI/conventional ultrasonography group, and in 106 (46.9%) in the microultrasonography/MRI group. Microultrasonography-guided biopsy was noninferior to MRI fusion-guided biopsy (difference, 3.52% [95% CI, -3.95% to 10.92%]; noninferiority P < .001). Combined biopsy with microultrasonography/MRI was also noninferior to MRI/conventional ultrasonography software-assisted MRI fusion biopsy using conventional ultrasonography devices (difference, 4.29% [95% CI, -4.06% to 12.63%]; noninferiority P < .001). The rate of Gleason Grade Group 2 or higher cancer diagnosed by targeted biopsy only was 38.0% in the microultrasonography group, 34.1% in the MRI/conventional ultrasonography group, and 40.3% in the microultrasonography/MRI group; these differences were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: The use of microultrasonography-guided biopsy was noninferior to MRI/conventional ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy for the detection of Gleason Grade Group 2 or higher prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. Microultrasonography may provide an alternative to MRI for image-guided prostate biopsy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05220501.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207