Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27995303›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2017

Integration of MRI to clinical nomogram for predicting pathological stage before radical prostatectomy.

Cedric Lebacle, Françoise Roudot-Thoraval, Anissa Moktefi, Mohamed Bouanane, Alexandre De La Taille, Laurent Salomon

Abstract read
PubMed 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 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Nomograms in Urologic Oncology: Lights and Shadows.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cedric LebacleDepartment of Urology, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France. cedric.lebacle@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8215-2918
Françoise Roudot-ThoravalDepartment of Public Health, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France.
Anissa MoktefiDepartment of Pathology, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France.
Mohamed BouananeDepartment of Radiology, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France.
Alexandre De La TailleDepartment of Urology, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France.
Laurent SalomonDepartment of Urology, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDebate persists regarding whether MRI should be used routinely for preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer.

objectiveThe aim is to assess the role of prostatic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and other preoperative data in extra-prostatic extension (EPE) evaluation. PATIENTS AND

methodsFrom 2000 to 2013, 1743 patients operated for radical prostatectomy had a preoperative MRI. Age, clinical stage with digital rectal exam (DRE), PSA, prostate weight, biopsy, MRI and pathological findings of the surgical specimen were noticed. A multiparametric score of the variables independently associated with EPE was built with or without MRI on a random sample test population and internally validated.

resultsWith mean age of 62.9 years and mean PSA of 9.6 ng/ml, the population was distributed as follows: 1424 DRE T1, 254 T2, 32 T3; on biopsy 990 Gleason score = 6 and 717 ≥ 7; on MRI 1322 iT2, 290 iT3A and 131 iT3B; on prostatectomy 15 pT0, 998 pT2, 548 pT3A, 181 pT3B and 1 pT4A. In multivariate analysis, DRE, PSA, Gleason score, prostate weight and MRI were independently associated with EPE and integrated in a score with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.74 [95% CI 0.71-0.77] (0.72 without MRI, p < 0.01) a positive predictive value of 61% and a negative predictive value of 74%, internally validated. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed good accuracy (p = 0.77).

conclusionsIntegration of MRI with clinical data for predicting pathological stage before radical prostatectomy permits to exclude accurately EPE in 74% of cases.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingNomogramsBiopsyDigital Rectal ExaminationHumansKallikreinsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingOrgan SizePreoperative CareProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific AntigenEPEMRINerve sparingPreoperative system scoreProstate cancerStaging

Identifiers

PMID27995303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.