ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy.
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Impact of prostate mpMRI quality on diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer: a prospective study.BJU international · 2026Article
- Urologist and radiologist contributions to variation in prostate cancer detection at fusion biopsy.BJU international · 2026Article
- Prostate MRI quality improvement: a Roadmap from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group.European radiology · 2026Review
- Development and Deployment of a Machine Learning Model to Triage the Use of Prostate MRI (ProMT-ML) in Patients With Suspected Prostate Cancer.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer undercategorized by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Geographic variability in contemporary utilization of PET imaging for prostate cancer: a medicare claims cohort study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- A Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment and Biopsy Outcomes with and Without Central Review in Two Swedish Regional Organized Prostate Cancer Testing Programs.European urology open science · 2025Article
- An online national quality assessment survey of prostate MRI reading: interreader variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS classification.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Correction: Can we rely on magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and surgical planning? Comprehensive analysis of a large cohort of patients undergoing transperineal mapped biopsies.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence improves resident detection of pediatric and young adult upper extremity fractures.Skeletal radiology · 2024Article
- Can we rely on magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and surgical planning? Comprehensive analysis of a large cohort of patients undergoing transperineal mapped biopsies.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Clinical Validation of Multiparametric Ultrasound for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Computer-Aided Diagnosis: A Direct Comparison with the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Pathway.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Expect the unexpected: investigating discordant prostate MRI and biopsy results.European radiology · 2024Article
- Risk stratification of prostate cancer with MRI and prostate-specific antigen density-based tool for personalized decision making.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Impact of prostate MRI central review over the diagnostic performance of MRI-targeted biopsy: should we routinely ask for an expert second opinion?World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and the value of experience: An intrareader variability study.Asian journal of urology · 2023Article
- Second-opinion interpretation of outside facility general ultrasound studies: rate of discrepancies and management change.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- Detection Rate of Prostate Cancer in Repeat Biopsy after an Initial Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Does including histological outcomes in a multiparametric MRI report improve prostate biopsy decision making?The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the value of second-opinion evaluation of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by subspecialised uroradiologists at a tertiary centre for the detection of significant cancer in transperineal fusion prostate biopsy.
methodsEvaluation of prospectively acquired initial and second-opinion radiology reports of 158 patients who underwent MRI at regional hospitals prior to transperineal MR/untrasound fusion biopsy at a tertiary referral centre over a 3-year period. Gleason score (GS) 7-10 cancer, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value (±95 % confidence intervals) were calculated and compared by Fisher's exact test.
resultsDisagreement between initial and tertiary centre second-opinion reports was observed in 54 % of cases (86/158). MRIs had a higher NPV for GS 7-10 in tertiary centre reads compared to initial reports (0.89 ± 0.08 vs 0.72 ± 0.16; p = 0.04), and a higher PPV in the target area for all cancer (0.61 ± 0.12 vs 0.28 ± 0.10; p = 0.01) and GS 7-10 cancer (0.43 ± 0.12 vs 0.2 3 ± 0.09; p = 0.02). For equivocal suspicion, the PPV for GS 7-10 was 0.12 ± 0.11 for tertiary centre and 0.11 ± 0.09 for initial reads; p = 1.00.
conclusionsSecond readings of prostate MRI by subspecialised uroradiologists at a tertiary centre significantly improved both NPV and PPV. Reporter experience may help to reduce overcalling and avoid overtargeting of lesions. KEY POINTS: • Multiparametric MRIs were more often called negative in subspecialist reads (41 % vs 20 %). • Second readings of prostate mpMRIs by subspecialist uroradiologists significantly improved NPV and PPV. • Reporter experience may reduce overcalling and avoid overtargeting of lesions. • Greater education and training of radiologists in prostate MRI interpretation is advised.
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.