ArticleWorld journal of urology2016
Evaluation of the 'Prostate Interdisciplinary Communication and Mapping Algorithm for Biopsy and Pathology' (PIC-MABP).
Article in World journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collaboration Between Physicians from Different Medical Specialties in Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Review
- All over the map: An interobserver agreement study of tumor location based on the PI-RADSv2 sector map.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExperience from interdisciplinary cooperation revealed the need for a prostate mapping scheme to communicate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) findings between radiologists, urologists, and pathologists, which should be detailed, yet easy to memorize. For this purpose, the 'Prostate interdisciplinary communication and mapping algorithm for biopsy and pathology' (PIC-MABP) was developed. This study evaluated the accuracy of the PIC-MABP system.
methodsPIC-MABP was tested and validated in findings of 10 randomly selected patients from routine clinical practise with 18 histologically proven cancer lesions. Patients received an mpMRI of the prostate prior to prostatectomy. After surgery the prostates were prepared as whole-mount step sections. Cancer lesions, which were found suspicious on mpMRI, were assigned to the according PIC-MABP sectors by a radiologist. MpMRI slides were masked and sent to seven urologists from different centres, providing only the PIC-MABP location of each lesion. Urologists marked the accordant regions. Then mpMRI slides were unmasked, and the correctness of each mark was evaluated.
resultsOne hundred and seventeen of the 126 marks (93%) were correctly assigned. Detection rates differed for lesions >0.5 cc compared with lesions <0.5 cc (p < 0.005): 3/7 (43%) marks were correctly assigned in lesions <0.3 cc, 16/21 (76%) in lesions with 0.3-0.5 cc, and 98/98 (100%) in lesions >0.5 cc. Interobserver agreement was good for lesions >0.5 cc and poor for lesions <0.3 cc (Fleiss Kappa 1 vs. 0.0175).
conclusionPIC-MABP seems to be a reliable system to communicate the location of mpMRI findings >0.5 cc between different disciplines and can be a useful guidance for cognitive mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26129626What 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.