ArticleBMC medical imaging2014
Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of ADC and ADCratio in MRI-based prostate cancer assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative evaluation of ADC and ADC ratio in differentiating Gleason Score 7 in prostate cancer imaging.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Role of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Ratio as Prognostic Factors for Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Correlation between ADC, ADC ratio, and Gleason Grade group in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Retrospective multicenter study with different MRI scanners.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Do the variations in ROI placement technique have influence for prostate ADC measurements?Acta radiologica open · 2022Article
- Performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values and ratios for the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness across different MRI acquisition settings.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2022Article
- Prostate cancer GTV delineation with biparametric MRI andThe British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- The utility of ADC parameters in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer by 3.0-Tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.Polish journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Biparametric versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: detection of clinically significant cancer in a perfect match group.Prostate international · 2020Article
- Effect of observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in PI-RADS v2.1 assessment category 4 and 5 observations compared to adverse pathological outcomes.European radiology · 2020Article
- Effects of the addition of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient data on the diagnostic performance of the PI-RADS v2 scoring system to detect clinically significant prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- Synthetic Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for HighProstate cancer · 2020Article
- Correlation between ADC values and Gleason score in evaluation of prostate cancer: multicentre experience and review of the literature.Gland surgery · 2019Review
- Multiparametric MRI appearances of primary granulomatous prostatitis.The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Predictive role of PI-RADSv2 and ADC parameters in differentiating Gleason pattern 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 prostate cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2019Article
- A negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging finding does not guarantee the absence of significant cancer among biopsy-proven prostate cancer patients: a real-life clinical experience.International urology and nephrology · 2018Article
- Utility of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient measurements and normalized apparent diffusion coefficient ratios in the diagnosis of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
- Can Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values Assist PI-RADS Version 2 DWI Scoring? A Correlation Study Using the PI-RADSv2 and International Society of Urological Pathology Systems.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2018Article
- Comparison of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient parameters with prostate imaging reporting and data system V2 assessment for detection of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2018Article
- Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: should we use quantitative metrics to better characterize focal lesions originating in the peripheral zone?European radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe tested the feasibility of a simple method for assessment of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to calculate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratios between prostate cancer and healthy prostatic tissue.
methodsThe requirement for institutional review board approval was waived. A set of 20 standardized core transperineal saturation biopsy specimens served as the reference standard for placement of regions of interest on ADC maps in tumorous and normal prostatic tissue of 22 men with PCa (median Gleason score: 7; range, 6-9). A total of 128 positive sectors were included for evaluation. Two diagnostic ratios were computed between tumor ADCs and normal sector ADCs: the ADC peripheral ratio (the ratio between tumor ADC and normal peripheral zone tissue, ADC-PR), and the ADC central ratio (the ratio between tumor ADC and normal central zone tissue, ADC-CR). The performance of the two ratios in detecting high-risk tumor foci (Gleason 8 and 9) was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsBoth ADC ratios presented significantly lower values in high-risk tumors (0.48 ± 0.13 for ADC-CR and 0.40 ± 0.09 for ADC-PR) compared with low-risk tumors (0.66 ± 0.17 for ADC-CR and 0.54 ± 0.09 for ADC-PR) (p < 0.001) and had better diagnostic performance (ADC-CR AUC = 0.77, sensitivity = 82.2%, specificity = 66.7% and ADC-PR AUC = 0.90, sensitivity = 93.7%, specificity = 80%) than stand-alone tumor ADCs (AUC of 0.75, sensitivity = 72.7%, specificity = 70.6%) for identifying high-risk lesions.
conclusionsThe ADC ratio as an intrapatient-normalized diagnostic tool may be better in detecting high-grade lesions compared with analysis based on tumor ADCs alone, and may reduce the rate of biopsies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.