ArticleWorld journal of urology2016
Poor standard mp-MRI and routine biopsy fail to precisely predict intraprostatic tumor localization.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with dispersion analysis for the localization of prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- Validation of the current eligibility criteria for focal therapy in men with localized prostate cancer and the role of MRI.World journal of urology · 2018Article
- From novice to expert: analyzing the learning curve for MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy.International urology and nephrology · 2017Article
- Cost consideration in utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the localization accuracy of routinely performed preoperative multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI), not being assessed according to PI-RADS criteria.
methodsOne hundred and six patients underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (January 2011-June 2012) with preoperative MRI. Intraprostatic tumor localization suggested by mp-MRI was correlated to both biopsy and histopathology results.
resultsSensitivity and specificity were as low as 25-62 and 60-94 %, respectively. Neither higher field force nor the use of an endorectal coil could enhance accuracy. There was no statistically significant concordance in any sextant. The mean number of correctly identified sextants was between 3.11 and 4.00 and, thus, insignificantly above the value of 3 that one would obtain by tossing the coin. For transrectal biopsies, sensitivity and specificity of tumor localization were 52-63 and 46-80 %, respectively.
conclusionsNeither routinely performed "non-PI-RADS" MRI nor transrectal biopsy can accurately localize prostate cancer. Focal therapy concepts rely on a precise intraprostatic tumor detection and therefore inevitably require PI-RADS assessment by radiologists with genitourinary specialization. Regarding patient discomfort and costs, "non-PI-RADS" MRIs of the prostate are not justified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26906031What 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.