ArticleWorld journal of urology2017
Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results.
Article in World journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.European urology oncology · 2020Pooled it
- The Impact of Prostate Volume on the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) in a Real-World Setting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 in combination with clinical parameters for prostate cancer detection: a single center experience.International urology and nephrology · 2023Article
- Structured reporting in radiologic education - Potential of different PI-RADS versions in prostate MRI controlled by in-bore MR-guided biopsies.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS v2, Proposed Adjusted PI-RADS v2 and Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Preliminary Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2020Article
- One-stop biparametric MRI and MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: can we include the histopathology result and our treatment recommendations in our diagnostic pathway?World journal of urology · 2020Article
- Multiparametric MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2) retains clinical efficacy in a predominantly post-biopsy patient population.Asian journal of urology · 2019Article
- Smarter screening for prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2019Review
- Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric MRI of the prostate: are gadolinium-based contrast agents needed for routine examinations?World journal of urology · 2019Article
- Prostate Cancer Differentiation and Aggressiveness: Assessment With a Radiomic-Based Model vs. PI-RADS v2.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Article
- Multidimensional analysis of clinicopathological characteristics of false-negative clinically significant prostate cancers on multiparametric MRI of the prostate in Japanese men.Japanese journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Article
- Validation of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2: A Retrospective Analysis.Current problems in diagnostic radiology · 2018Article
- Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2018Article
- Diagnostic Performance and Interobserver Consistency of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2: A Study on Six Prostate Radiologists with Different Experiences from Half a Year to 17 Years.Chinese medical journal · 2018Article
- PI-RADS v2: Current standing and future outlook.Turkish journal of urology · 2018Review
- A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2018Article
- 3D T2-weighted imaging to shorten multiparametric prostate MRI protocols.European radiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 1 (v1) and version 2 (v2) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa).
methodsMultiparametric MRIs (mpMRI) of 50 consecutive patients with biopsy proven PCa, which had originally been evaluated according to PIRADS v1, were now retrospectively re-evaluated, comparing PI-RADS v1 and v2. MpMRI data were evaluated in comparison with histopathological whole-mount step-section slides. MRI examinations included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.
resultsOverall PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger discriminative ability of tumor detection: PI-RADS v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.94-0.98) and v2 AUC 0.90 (95 % CI 0.86-0.94). For peripheral zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger ability of PCa discrimination: v1 AUC 0.97 (95 % CI 0.95-0.99) and v2 AUC 0.92 (95 % CI 0.88-0.96). For transition zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed more discrimination: v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.92-1.00) and v2 0.90 (95 % CI 0.83-0.97), but the difference was not significant. PI-RADS v2 resulted in significantly more false negative results (3 % in v1, 14 % in v2) and a comparable number of true positive results (82 % in v1, 80 % in v2).
conclusionPI-RADS v2 uses a simplified approach, but shows a lower diagnostic accuracy. This could lead to a higher rate of false negative results with the risk of missing tumors within low PI-RADS score levels. Therefore, its use cannot be recommended unconditionally, and further improvement should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27510762What 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.