Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29063480›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2018

An update of pitfalls in prostate mpMRI: a practical approach through the lens of PI-RADS v. 2 guidelines.

Valeria Panebianco, Francesco Giganti, Yu Xuan Kitzing, François Cornud, Riccardo Campa, Gianluca De Rubeis, Antonio Ciardi, Carlo Catalano, Geert Villeirs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The evolving PI-RADS paradigm.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. [Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Valeria PanebiancoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology & Pathology, Sapienza, University of Rome, V.le Regina Elena, 324 00161, Rome, Italy. valeria.panebianco@gmail.com.
Francesco GigantiDepartment of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Yu Xuan KitzingDepartment of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
François CornudDepartment of Radiology, Hôpital Cochin, Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Riccardo CampaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology & Pathology, Sapienza, University of Rome, V.le Regina Elena, 324 00161, Rome, Italy.
Gianluca De RubeisDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology & Pathology, Sapienza, University of Rome, V.le Regina Elena, 324 00161, Rome, Italy.
Antonio CiardiDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology & Pathology, Sapienza, University of Rome, V.le Regina Elena, 324 00161, Rome, Italy.
Carlo CatalanoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology & Pathology, Sapienza, University of Rome, V.le Regina Elena, 324 00161, Rome, Italy.
Geert VilleirsDepartment of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the current report is to provide an update in the imaging interpretation of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), with a special focus on how to discriminate pathological tissue from the most common pitfalls that may be encountered during daily clinical practice using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 guidelines.

methodsAll the cases that are shown in this pictorial review comply with the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines for technical mpMRI requirements.

resultsDespite the standardised manner to report mpMRI (PI-RADS v. 2), some para-physiologic appearances of the prostate can mimic cancer. As such, it is crucial to be aware of these pitfalls, in order to avoid the under/overestimation of prostate cancer.

conclusionsA detailed knowledge of normal and abnormal findings in mpMRI of the prostate is pivotal for an accurate management of the wide spectrum of clinical scenarios that radiologists may encounter during their daily practice. TEACHING POINTS: • Some para-physiologic appearances of the prostate may mimic cancer. • Knowledge of normal and abnormal findings in prostate mpMRI is pivotal. • Any radiologist involved in prostate mpMRI reporting should be aware of pitfalls.

Indexed as

DiagnosisMagnetic resonance imagingPitfallsProstateProstatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID29063480
PMCPMC5825307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.