Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26788234›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada

Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy.

Eva M Serrao, Tristan Barrett, Karan Wadhwa, Deepak Parashar, Julia Frey, Brendan C Koo, Anne Y Warren, Andrew Doble, Christof Kastner, Ferdia A Gallagher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools.American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting · 2016
    Review
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

10 authors.

Eva M SerraoDepartment of Radiology, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal, and Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge and Cancer Research, Cambridge, UK;
Tristan BarrettDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;; Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;
Karan WadhwaDepartment of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;
Deepak ParasharCancer Research Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK;
Julia FreyDepartment of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;
Brendan C KooDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;
Anne Y WarrenDepartment of Histopathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital.
Andrew DobleDepartment of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;
Christof KastnerDepartment of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;
Ferdia A GallagherDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16465Cancer Research UK 16628
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe characterized false negative prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reporting by using histology derived from MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided transperineal (MTTP) fusion biopsies.

methodsIn total, 148 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed. Men underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), reported by a consultant/attending radiologist in line with European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standards. MTTP biopsy of the lesions was performed according to the Ginsburg recommendations. Cases with an MRI-histology mismatch were identified and underwent a second read by an experienced radiologist. A third review was performed with direct histology comparison to determine a true miss from an MRI-occult cancer. Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar's test.

resultsFalse negative lesions were identified in 29 MRI examinations (19.6%), with a total of 46 lesions. Most false negative lesions (21/46) were located in the anterior sectors of the prostate. The second read led to a significant decrease of false-negative lesions with 7/29 further studies identified as positive on a patient-by-patient basis (24.1% of studies, p = 0.016) and 11/46 lesions (23.9%; p = 0.001). Of these, 30 lesions following the first read and 23 lesions after the second read were considered significant cancer according to the University College London criteria. However, on direct comparison with histology, most lesions were MRI occult.

conclusionWe demonstrate that MRI can fail to detect clinically relevant lesions. Improved results were achieved with a second read but despite this, a number of lesions remain MRI-occult. Further advances in imaging are required to reduce false negative results.

Identifiers

PMID26788234
PMCPMC4707904

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.