Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38937536›Full record

ReviewProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025

Should systematic prostatic biopsies be discontinued?

Laurence Klotz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. "Re: Should systematic prostatic biopsies be discontinued?"Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Laurence KlotzUniversity of Toronto, Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave MG 408, Toronto, ON, M4N3M5, Canada. Laurence.Klotz@Sunnybrook.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1001-2235

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe use of systematic biopsies in addition to targeted biopsies is based on multiple studies showing that 15-20% of "clinically significant" cancers are missed on targeted biopsies. Concern about these 'missed' cancers drives many interventions. This includes systematic biopsies in men with negative imaging and in men having targeted biopsies, and drives a preference for total gland treatment in men who may be candidates for partial gland ablation. This article summarizes recent genomic and clinical data indicating that, despite "clinically significant" histology, MRI invisible lesions are genomically and clinically favorable. These studies have demonstrated that the genetic aberrations associated with cancer visibility are the same aberrations that drive cancer invasiveness and metastasis. Thus invisible cancers, even if undiagnosed at baseline, are in most cases indolent and pose little threat to the patient. The implications are that patients should be monitored with imaging rather than systematic biopsy, and subject to repeat targeted biopsy for evidence of MR progression. Patients prefer this strategy. It has many advantages in terms of reduced burden of care, cost, psychological benefits, and less diagnosis of insignificant cancer.

conclusionIt is now appropriate to abandon systematic biopsies in most patients.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsBiopsyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMale

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.