Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21437432›Full record

ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2011

Clinically low-risk prostate cancer: evaluation with transrectal doppler ultrasound and functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Maria Inês Novis, Ronaldo Hueb Baroni, Luciana Mendes de Oliveira Cerri, Romulo Loss Mattedi, Carlos Alberto Buchpiguel

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Maria Inês NovisFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo--Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ronaldo Hueb Baroni
Luciana Mendes de Oliveira Cerri
Romulo Loss Mattedi
Carlos Alberto Buchpiguel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate transrectal ultrasound, amplitude Doppler ultrasound, conventional T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, spectroscopy and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in localizing and locally staging low-risk prostate cancer.

introductionProstate cancer has been diagnosed at earlier stages and the most accepted classification for low-risk prostate cancer is based on clinical stage T1c or T2a, Gleason score ≤6, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤10 ng/ml.

methodsFrom 2005 to 2006, magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 42 patients, and transrectal ultrasound in 26 of these patients. Seven patients were excluded from the study. Mean patient age was 64.94 years and mean serum PSA was 6.05 ng/ml. The examinations were analyzed for tumor identification and location in prostate sextants, detection of extracapsular extension, and seminal vesicle invasion, using surgical pathology findings as the gold standard.

resultsSixteen patients (45.7%) had pathologically proven organ-confined disease, 11 (31.4%) had positive surgical margin, 8 (28.9%) had extracapsular extension, and 3 (8.6%) presented with extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy values for localizing low-risk prostate cancer were 53.1%, 48.3%, 63.4%, 37.8% and 51.3% for transrectal ultrasound; 70.4%, 36.2%, 65.1%, 42.0% and 57.7% for amplitude Doppler ultrasound; 71.5%, 58.9%, 76.6%, 52.4% and 67.1% for magnetic resonance imaging; 70.4%, 58.7%, 78.4%, 48.2% and 66.7% for magnetic resonance spectroscopy; 67.2%, 65.7%, 79.3%, 50.6% and 66.7% for dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy values for detecting extracapsular extension were 33.3%, 92%, 14.3%, 97.2% and 89.7% for transrectal ultrasound and 50.0%, 77.6%, 13.7%, 95.6% and 75.7% for magnetic resonance imaging, respectively. For detecting seminal vesicle invasion, these values were 66.7%, 85.7%, 22.2%, 97.7% and 84.6% for transrectal ultrasound and 40.0%, 83.1%, 15.4%, 94.7% and 80.0% for magnetic resonance imaging.

conclusionAlthough preliminary, our results suggest that imaging modalities have limited usefulness in localizing and locally staging clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Indexed as

AgedBiopsyContrast MediaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk FactorsUltrasonography, DopplerContrast MediaProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID21437432
PMCPMC3044567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 OpenQuestion graph.