ArticleBJUI compass2026
Comparison of software vs. cognitive-based fusion-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis.
Article in BJUI compass, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of software vs. cognitive-based fusion-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis.BJUI compass · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of software-based fusion-targeted biopsies (STBx) versus cognitive fusion-targeted biopsies (CogTBx) in detecting prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa. Materials and methods: Men aged 30-85 were included in a target trial emulation if they had undergone a STBx or CogTBx of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 lesions in 2020-2024. Using log-link binary regression models with inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for confounding, we estimated the associations between biopsy technique and detection of PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason ≥3 + 4 and Gleason ≥4 + 3) by use of adjusted relative risks (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) obtained via bootstrapping. Results: A total of 2092 men who underwent STBx and 7933 men who underwent CogTBx in 2020-2024 were identified in PCBase Xtend. The overall proportion diagnosed with PCa was 64%. STBx detected PCa with a slightly higher frequency (aRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09), corresponding to an absolute increase of 3.3 percentage points (95% CI 1.2-5.3). The relative risk for detection of Gleason ≥4 + 3 was somewhat larger (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23). The largest relative difference for detection of PCa was observed in PI-RADS 3 lesions (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24), and this pattern became even more apparent when the outcome was restricted to clinically significant PCa. Conclusions: Software-based fusion-targeted biopsies detected slightly more PCa and clinically significant PCa compared to cognitive fusion-targeted biopsies, particularly in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions. Prioritizing PI-RADS 3 lesions for software-based targeted fusion biopsy could optimize diagnostic effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.