Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28333017›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2017

Effect of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Biopsy on Radiation Treatment Recommendations.

Aaron Reed, Luca F Valle, Uma Shankavaram, Andra Krauze, Aradhana Kaushal, Erica Schott, Theresa Cooley-Zgela, Bradford Wood, Peter Pinto, Peter Choyke and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Aaron ReedRadiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Luca F ValleRadiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Uma ShankavaramRadiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Andra KrauzeRadiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Aradhana KaushalRadiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Erica SchottRadiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Theresa Cooley-ZgelaRadiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Bradford WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Peter PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Peter ChoykeMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Deborah E CitrinRadiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: citrind@mail.nih.gov.
Center for Cancer Research · USNational Cancer Institute · USNational Institutes of Health · USNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center · US

Funding

Center for Interventional OncologyZIDBC011242 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2009 to 2025
$18.7M
Targeting mechanisms of radiation resistanceZIABC011552 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CITRIN, DEBORAH · 2014 to 2025
$12.2M
Evaluation of Novel Radiation ModifiersZ01BC010849 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CITRIN, DEBORAH · 2007 to 2008
$1.0M
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteIntramural NIH HHS Z01 BC010849Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTargeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (MRI-Bx) has recently been compared with the standard of care extended sextant ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (SOC-Bx), with the former associated with an increased rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. The present study sought to determine the influence of MRI-Bx on radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients who had received radiation treatment and had undergone SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx at our institution were included. Using the clinical T stage, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score, patients were categorized into National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups and radiation treatment or ADT recommendations assigned. Intensification of the recommended treatment after multiparametric MRI, SOC-Bx, and MRI-Bx was evaluated.

resultsFrom January 2008 to January 2016, 73 patients received radiation therapy at our institution after undergoing a simultaneous SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx (n=47 with previous SOC-Bx). Repeat SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx resulted in frequent upgrading compared with previous SOC-Bx (Gleason score 7, 6.7% vs 44.6%; P<.001; Gleason score 8-10, 2.1% vs 38%; P<.001). MRI-Bx increased the proportion of patients classified as very high risk from 24.7% to 41.1% (P=.027). Compared with SOC-Bx alone, including the MRI-Bx findings resulted in a greater percentage of pathologically positive cores (mean 37% vs 44%). Incorporation of multiparametric MRI and MRI-Bx results increased the recommended use and duration of ADT (duration increased in 28 of 73 patients and ADT was added for 8 of 73 patients).

conclusionsIn patients referred for radiation treatment, MRI-Bx resulted in an increase in the percentage of positive cores, Gleason score, and risk grouping. The benefit of treatment intensification in accordance with the MRI-Bx findings is unknown.

Indexed as

AdultAgedClinical Decision-MakingHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingPatient SelectionProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID28333017
PMCPMC5364814
OpenAlexW2565142298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.