ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
Relationship between Gleason score and apparent diffusion coefficients of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
- Article
- Association of Prostate Multiparametric MRI Parameters with Gleason Score: A Fusion Biopsy-Based CorrelationCurrent medical imaging · 2026Article
- Optimizing prostate cancer detection in transition zone: an analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient values in prostate magnetic resonance imaging evaluation with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- Comparison of data fusion strategies for automated prostate lesion detection using mpMRI correlated with whole mount histology.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Clinical value of minimum apparent diffusion coefficient for prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer in the transition zone.International journal of clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Standard Mono-Exponential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Diagnosis of Significant Prostate Cancer-A Correlation with Gleason Score Assessed on Whole-Mount Histopathology Specimens.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Segmentation of the prostate, its zones, anterior fibromuscular stroma, and urethra on the MRIs and multimodality image fusion using U-Net model.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Fully automated detection and localization of clinically significant prostate cancer on MR images using a cascaded convolutional neural network.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- MRI apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC): A biomarker for prostate cancer after radiation therapy.Turkish journal of urology · 2021Article
- Synthetic Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for HighProstate cancer · 2020Article
- Early Second Round Targeted Biopsy of PI-RADS Score 3 or 4 in 256 Men With Persistent Suspicion of Prostate Cancer.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Multiparametric MRI Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Accuracy in Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe assessed the correlation between the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and pathological Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer patients.
methodsA total of 125 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were included in this study. ADC values were compared with different GS. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis and determined the ADC cutoff value to differentiate tumours with a GS of 6 from those with a GS ≥7.
resultsWe identified 34 patients (27.2%) with a GS of 6; 33 patients (26.4%) with a GS of 7; 22 patients (17.6%) with a GS of 8; and 36 patients (28.8%) with a GS of ≥9. The mean ADC value for disease with a GS of 6 was 0.914 ± 0.161 ×10
conclusionsWe observed an inverse relationship between GS and ADC value. Moreover, a cutoff ADC value may help differentiate disease with a GS of 6 from disease with a GS ≥7.
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.