Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27637908›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2017

Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project.

M J Scheltema, K J Tay, A W Postema, D M de Bruin, J Feller, J J Futterer, A K George, R T Gupta, F Kahmann, C Kastner and 13 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. MR Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Biopsy and Primary Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

23 authors.

M J ScheltemaDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.j.scheltema@amc.uva.nl.
K J TayDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
A W PostemaDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
D M de BruinDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J FellerDesert Medical Imaging, Indian Wells, CA, USA.
J J FuttererDepartment of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
A K GeorgeUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
R T GuptaDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
F KahmannUrologische Praxis Dr. Henkel and Dr. Kahmann, Berlin, Germany.
C KastnerCamPARI Prostate Cancer Clinic, Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, Cambridge, UK.
M P LagunaDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S NatarajanDepartment of Urology, Surgery and Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
S Rais-BahramiDepartment of Urology and Radiology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
A R RastinehadDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
T M de ReijkeDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G SalomonMartini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
N StoneDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
R van VelthovenDepartment of Urology, Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium.
R VillaniDepartment of Radiology, North Shore University Hospital, Northwell Health, NY, USA.
A VillersDepartment of Urology, Lille University Medical Center, Lille, France.
J WalzDepartment of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Centre, Marseille, France.
T J PolascikDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
J J M C H de la RosetteDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT).

methodsAn international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results.

resultsmpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naïve patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers.

conclusionsThe mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological community.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAblation TechniquesBiopsyCryosurgeryDelphi TechniqueElectrochemotherapyHigh-Intensity Focused Ultrasound AblationHumansLaser TherapyMalePathologistsPhotochemotherapyProstatic NeoplasmsRadiologistsSurveys and QuestionnairesUrologistsConsensusDelphiFocal therapyMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID27637908
PMCPMC5397427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.