ArticleJAMA oncology2018
A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Risk Stratification.
Article in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
98 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Refining biopsy strategies stratified by PI-RADS score in men: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical impact of MRI-based risk calculators for prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning-based MRI imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Prediction models in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- 10 mm (PI-RADS v2.1) versus 15 mm (PI-RADS v1.0) tumor capsule contact length in predicting extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: Meta-analysis and systematic review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Pooled it
- Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.European urology · 2019Guideline
- Deep learning for fully automatic detection, segmentation, and Gleason grade estimation of prostate cancer in multiparametric magnetic resonance images.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naïve men for prostate biopsies.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2019Trial
- Radiological and Biological Dictionary of Radiomics Features: Addressing Understandable AI Issues in Personalized Prostate Cancer, Dictionary Version PM1.0.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Aggressive chronic prostatitis mimicking locally advanced prostate cancer with apparent extraprostatic extension: a case report.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Predicting clinically significant prostate cancer with or without digital rectal exam and MRI data using ClarityDX Prostate models.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Performance of Machine Learning Models in Reducing Unnecessary Targeted Prostate Biopsies.European urology oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical-imaging fusion model for risk assessment of clinically significant prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Transforming Prostate Cancer Care: Innovations in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Personalised Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Evaluating Biomarker-based Approaches to Reduce Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biopsy Procedures.European urology open science · 2025Review
- A Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1-based predictive model for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis.BJU international · 2025Article
- Article
38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in conjunction with MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided biopsies have improved the detection of prostate cancer. It is unclear whether MRI itself adds additional value to multivariable prediction models based on clinical parameters. Objective: To determine whether an MRI-based prediction model can reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients underwent MRI, MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy, and 12-core systematic biopsy in 1 session. The development cohort used to derive the prediction model consisted of 400 patients from 1 institution enrolled between May 14, 2015, and August 31, 2016, and the validation cohort included 251 patients from 2 independent institutions who underwent biopsies between April 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016, at 1 institution and between July 1, 2015, and October 31, 2016, at the other institution. The MRI model included MRI-derived parameters in addition to clinical variables. Area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curves and decision curve analysis were performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy, defined as a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or higher in at least 1 biopsy core. Results: Overall, 193 (48.3%) of the 400 patients in the development cohort (mean [SD] age at biopsy, 64.3 [7.1] years) and 96 (38.2%) of the 251 patients in the validation cohort (mean [SD] age at biopsy, 64.9 [7.2] years) had clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score greater than or equal to 3 + 4. By applying the model to the external validation cohort, the area under the curve increased from 64% to 84% compared with the baseline model (P < .001). At a risk threshold of 20%, the MRI model had a lower false-positive rate than the baseline model (46% [95% CI, 32%-66%] vs 92% [95% CI, 70%-100%]), with only a small reduction in the true-positive rate (89% [95% CI, 85%-96%] vs 99% [95% CI, 89%-100%]). Eighteen of 100 fewer biopsies could have been performed, with no increase in the number of patients with missed clinically significant prostate cancers. Conclusions and Relevance: The inclusion of MRI-derived parameters in a risk model could reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies while maintaining a high rate of diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancers.
Indexed as
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.