Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26816833›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2015

The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management.

Jan Philipp Radtke, Dogu Teber, Markus Hohenfellner, Boris A Hadaschik

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Jan Philipp Radtke1 Department of Urology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany ; 2 Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Dogu Teber1 Department of Urology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany ; 2 Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus Hohenfellner1 Department of Urology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany ; 2 Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Boris A Hadaschik1 Department of Urology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany ; 2 Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccurate detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PC) and correct risk attribution are essential to individually counsel men with PC. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) facilitates correct localization of index lesions within the prostate and MRI-targeted prostate biopsy (TPB) helps to avoid the shortcomings of conventional biopsy such as false-negative results or underdiagnosis of aggressive PC. In this review we summarize the different sequences of mpMRI, characterize the possibilities of incorporating MRI in the biopsy workflow and outline the performance of targeted and systematic cores in significant cancer detection. Furthermore, we outline the potential of MRI in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS) and in the pre-operative setting. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn electronic MEDLINE/PubMed search up to February 2015 was performed. English language articles were reviewed for inclusion ability and data were extracted, analyzed and summarized.

resultsTargeted biopsies significantly outperform conventional systematic biopsies in the detection of significant PC and are not inferior when compared to transperineal saturation biopsies. MpMRI can detect index lesions in app. 90% of cases as compared to prostatectomy specimen. The diagnostic performance of biparametric MRI (T2w + DWI) is not inferior to mpMRI, offering options to diminish cost- and time-consumption. Since app 10% of significant lesions are still MRI-invisible, systematic cores seem to be necessary. In-bore biopsy and MRI/TRUS-fusion-guided biopsy tend to be superior techniques compared to cognitive fusion. In AS, mpMRI avoids underdetection of significant PC and confirms low-risk disease accurately. In higher-risk disease, pre-surgical MRI can change the clinically-based surgical plan in up to a third of cases.

conclusionsmpMRI and targeted biopsies are able to detect significant PC accurately and mitigate insignificant PC detection. As long as the negative predictive value (NPV) is still imperfect, systematic cores should not be omitted for optimal staging of disease. The potential to correctly classify aggressiveness of disease in AS patients and to guide and plan prostatectomy is evolving.

Indexed as

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)MRI/TRUS-fusion-guided biopsymultiparametric MRI (mpMRI)PIRADS v1.0PIRADS v2.0Prostate cancer (PC)radical prostatectomy (RP)stagingsystematic biopsy (SB)targeted prostate biopsy (TPB)

Identifiers

PMID26816833
PMCPMC4708229

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.