ArticleChinese medical journal2016
Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 1 versus Version 2.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of PI-RADS Category 3 lesions on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting prostate cancer and the prevalence of prostate cancer within each PI-RADS category: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2021Pooled 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
- Prospective comparison of restriction spectrum imaging and non-invasive biomarkers to predict upgrading on active surveillance prostate biopsy.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Article
- 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
- Efficacy ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- 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
- When to biopsy Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) assessment category 3 lesions? Use of clinical and imaging variables to predict cancer diagnosis at targeted biopsy.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021Article
- Assessment of DCE Utility for PCa Diagnosis Using PI-RADS v2.1: Effects on Diagnostic Accuracy and Reproducibility.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Validation of PI-RADS Version 2 in Transition Zone Lesions for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.Radiology · 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
- Using the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RIDS v2) to detect prostate cancer can prevent unnecessary biopsies and invasive treatment.Asian journal of andrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is a globally acceptable standardization for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. The American College of Radiology revised the PI-RADS to address the limitations of version 1 in December 2014. This study aimed to determine whether the PI-RADS version 2 (PI-RADS v2) scoring system improves the diagnostic accuracy of mp-MRI of the prostate compared with PI-RADS v1.
methodsThis retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. A total of 401 consecutive patients, with clinically suspicious PCa undergoing 3.0 T mp-MRI (T2-weighted imaging + diffusion-weighted imaging + DCE) before transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy between June 2013 and July 2015, were included in the study. All patients were scored using the 5-point PI-RADS scoring system based on either PI-RADS v1 or v2. Receiver operating characteristics were calculated for statistical analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were compared using McNemar's test.
resultsPCa was present in 150 of 401 (37.41%) patients. When we pooled data from both peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ), the areas under the curve were 0.889 for PI-RADS v1 and 0.942 for v2 (P = 0.0001). Maximal accuracy was achieved with a score threshold of 4. At this threshold, in the PZ, similar sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were achieved with v1 and v2 (all P > 0.05). In the TZ, sensitivity was higher for v2 than for v1 (96.36% vs. 76.36%, P = 0.003), specificity was similar for v2 and v1 (90.24% vs. 84.15%, P = 0.227), and accuracy was higher for v2 than for v1 (92.70% vs. 81.02%, P = 0.002).
conclusionsBoth v1 and v2 showed good diagnostic performance for the detection of PCa. However, in the TZ, the performance was better with v2 than with v1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.