Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22952382›Full record

ArticleRadiology2012

Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study.

Hebert Alberto Vargas, Oguz Akin, Amita Shukla-Dave, Jingbo Zhang, Kristen L Zakian, Junting Zheng, Kent Kanao, Debra A Goldman, Chaya S Moskowitz, Victor E Reuter and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Extensive disease among potential candidates for hemi-ablative focal therapy for prostate cancer.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Is contrast enhancement needed for diagnostic prostate MRI?Translational andrology and urology · 2017
    Review
  14. [MRI of the prostate].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2017
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Hebert Alberto VargasDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, Room C-278, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Oguz Akin
Amita Shukla-Dave
Jingbo Zhang
Kristen L Zakian
Junting Zheng
Kent Kanao
Debra A Goldman
Chaya S Moskowitz
Victor E Reuter
James A Eastham
Peter T Scardino
Hedvig Hricak

Funding

IMAGING IN RISK ASSESSMENT OF PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTSR01CA076423 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO · PI HRICAK, HEDVIG · 1999 to 2010
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA076423
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo prospectively evaluate diagnostic performance of T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in detecting lesions stratified by pathologic volume and Gleason score in men with clinically determined low-risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe institutional review board approved this prospective, HIPAA-compliant study. Written informed consent was obtained from 183 men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer (cT1-cT2a, Gleason score≤6 at biopsy, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level<10 ng/mL [10 μg/L]) undergoing MR imaging before prostatectomy. By using a scale of 1-5 (score 1, definitely no tumor; score 5, definitely tumor), two radiologists independently scored likelihood of tumor per sextant on T2-weighted images. Two spectroscopists jointly recorded locations of lesions with metabolic features consistent with tumor on MR spectroscopic images. Whole-mount step-section histopathologic analysis constituted the reference standard. Diagnostic performance at sextant level (T2-weighted imaging) and detection sensitivities (T2-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging) for lesions of 0.5 cm3 or larger were calculated.

resultsFor T2-weighted imaging, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for sextant-level detection were 0.77 (reader 1) and 0.82 (reader 2). For lesions of ≥0.5 cm3 and, 1<cm3, sensitivities were significantly lower when the lesion Gleason score was ≤6 (0.44 [reader 1] and 0.61 [reader 2]) rather than when the Gleason score was ≥7 (0.73, P=.02 [reader 1]; and 0.84, P=.05 [reader 2]). For lesions of ≥1 cm3, lesion Gleason score did not significantly affect sensitivity (0.83 [reader 1] and 1.00 [reader 2] for Gleason score≤6 vs 0.82 and 0.92 for Gleason score≥7; P≥.07). MR spectroscopic imaging sensitivity was low and was not significantly affected by pathologic lesion volume or Gleason score.

conclusionIn men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer, detection of lesions of <1 cm3 with T2-weighted imaging is significantly dependent on lesion Gleason score; detection of lesions of ≥1 cm3 is significantly better than detection of smaller lesions and is not affected by lesion Gleason score. The role of MR spectroscopic imaging alone in this population is limited.

Indexed as

AdultAgedHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedPreoperative CareProspective StudiesProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22952382
PMCPMC3480819

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.