Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28346073›Full record

ArticleRadiology2017

Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Short Dual-Pulse Sequence versus Standard Multiparametric MR Imaging-A Multireader Study.

Borna K Barth, Pieter J L De Visschere, Alexander Cornelius, Carlos Nicolau, Hebert Alberto Vargas, Daniel Eberli, Olivio F Donati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Landmarks in the evolution of prostate biopsy.Nature reviews. Urology · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Abbreviated MR Protocols in Prostate MRI.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Borna K BarthFrom the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (B.K.B., O.F.D.) and Department of Urology (D.E.), University Hospital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (P.J.L.D.V.); Department for Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (A.C.); Department of Radiology, CDIC, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (C.N.); and Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (H.A.V.).
Pieter J L De VisschereFrom the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (B.K.B., O.F.D.) and Department of Urology (D.E.), University Hospital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (P.J.L.D.V.); Department for Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (A.C.); Department of Radiology, CDIC, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (C.N.); and Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (H.A.V.).
Alexander CorneliusFrom the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (B.K.B., O.F.D.) and Department of Urology (D.E.), University Hospital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (P.J.L.D.V.); Department for Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (A.C.); Department of Radiology, CDIC, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (C.N.); and Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (H.A.V.).
Carlos NicolauFrom the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (B.K.B., O.F.D.) and Department of Urology (D.E.), University Hospital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (P.J.L.D.V.); Department for Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (A.C.); Department of Radiology, CDIC, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (C.N.); and Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (H.A.V.).
Hebert Alberto VargasFrom the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (B.K.B., O.F.D.) and Department of Urology (D.E.), University Hospital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (P.J.L.D.V.); Department for Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (A.C.); Department of Radiology, CDIC, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (C.N.); and Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (H.A.V.).
Daniel EberliFrom the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (B.K.B., O.F.D.) and Department of Urology (D.E.), University Hospital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (P.J.L.D.V.); Department for Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (A.C.); Department of Radiology, CDIC, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (C.N.); and Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (H.A.V.).
Olivio F DonatiFrom the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (B.K.B., O.F.D.) and Department of Urology (D.E.), University Hospital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (P.J.L.D.V.); Department for Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (A.C.); Department of Radiology, CDIC, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (C.N.); and Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (H.A.V.).

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of a short dual-pulse sequence magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocol versus a standard six-pulse sequence multiparametric MR imaging protocol for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between July 2013 and March 2015, 63 patients from a prospectively accrued study population who underwent MR imaging of the prostate including transverse T1-weighted; transverse, coronal, and sagittal T2-weighted; diffusion-weighted; and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging with a 3-T imager at a single institution were included in this retrospective study. The short MR imaging protocol image set consisted of transverse T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted images only. The standard MR imaging protocol image set contained images from all six pulse sequences. Three expert readers from different institutions assessed the likelihood of prostate cancer on a five-point scale. Diagnostic performance on a quadrant basis was assessed by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, and differences were evaluated by using 83.8% confidence intervals. Intra- and interreader agreement was assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Transperineal template saturation biopsy served as the standard of reference. Results At histopathologic evaluation, 84 of 252 (33%) quadrants were positive for cancer in 38 of 63 (60%) men. There was no significant difference in detection of tumors larger than or equal to 0.5 mL for any of the readers of the short MR imaging protocol, with areas under the curve in the range of 0.74-0.81 (83.8% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 0.89), and for readers of the standard MR imaging protocol, areas under the curve were 0.71-0.77 (83.8% CI: 0.62, 0.86). Ranges for sensitivity were 0.76-0.95 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.99) and 0.76-0.86 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.97) and those for specificity were 0.84-0.90 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.94) and 0.82-0.90 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.94) for the short and standard MR protocols, respectively. Ranges for interreader agreement were 0.48-0.60 (83.8% CI: 0.41, 0.66) and 0.49-0.63 (83.8% CI: 0.42, 0.68) for the short and standard MR imaging protocols. Conclusion For the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, no difference was found in the diagnostic performance of the short MR imaging protocol consisting of only transverse T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging pulse sequences compared with that of a standard multiparametric MR imaging protocol.

Indexed as

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedAgedHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID28346073
PMCPMC5584651

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.