Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25749786›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2015

Multivariate modelling of prostate cancer combining magnetic resonance derived T2, diffusion, dynamic contrast-enhanced and spectroscopic parameters.

S F Riches, G S Payne, V A Morgan, D Dearnaley, S Morgan, M Partridge, N Livni, C Ogden, N M deSouza

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Color Maps: Facilitating the Clinical Impact of Quantitative MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

S F RichesCRUK & EPSRC Cancer Imaging Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK, sophie.riches@icr.ac.uk.
G S Payne
V A Morgan
D Dearnaley
S Morgan
M Partridge
N Livni
C Ogden
N M deSouza
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council · GBCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology · GBOttawa Hospital · CA

Funding

Cancer Research UK 10588Cancer Research UK 12518Cancer Research UK 16049Cancer Research UK 16464Cancer Research UK 16466Cancer Research UK 19727Department of Health C1060/A10334Medical Research Council G0701533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objectives are determine the optimal combination of MR parameters for discriminating tumour within the prostate using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and to compare model accuracy with that of an experienced radiologist.

methodsMultiparameter MRIs in 24 patients before prostatectomy were acquired. Tumour outlines from whole-mount histology, T2-defined peripheral zone (PZ), and central gland (CG) were superimposed onto slice-matched parametric maps. T2, Apparent Diffusion Coefficient, initial area under the gadolinium curve, vascular parameters (K(trans),Kep,Ve), and (choline+polyamines+creatine)/citrate were compared between tumour and non-tumour tissues. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined sensitivity and specificity at spectroscopic voxel resolution and per lesion, and LDA determined the optimal multiparametric model for identifying tumours. Accuracy was compared with an expert observer.

resultsTumours were significantly different from PZ and CG for all parameters (all p < 0.001). Area under the ROC curve for discriminating tumour from non-tumour was significantly greater (p < 0.001) for the multiparametric model than for individual parameters; at 90 % specificity, sensitivity was 41 % (MRSI voxel resolution) and 59 % per lesion. At this specificity, an expert observer achieved 28 % and 49 % sensitivity, respectively.

conclusionThe model was more accurate when parameters from all techniques were included and performed better than an expert observer evaluating these data. KEY POINTS: • The combined model increases diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer compared with individual parameters • The optimal combined model includes parameters from diffusion, spectroscopy, perfusion, and anatominal MRI • The computed model improves tumour detection compared to an expert viewing parametric maps.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaAgedDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage EnhancementMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstateProstatic NeoplasmsROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID25749786
OpenAlexW2014565774

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.