Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29470570›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2018

A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Risk Stratification.

Sherif Mehralivand, Joanna H Shih, Soroush Rais-Bahrami, Aytekin Oto, Sandra Bednarova, Jeffrey W Nix, John V Thomas, Jennifer B Gordetsky, Sonia Gaur, Stephanie A Harmon and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Sherif MehralivandDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany.
Joanna H ShihDivision of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis: Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland.
Soroush Rais-BahramiDepartment of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Aytekin OtoDepartment of Radiology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Sandra BednarovaInstitute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Jeffrey W NixDepartment of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
John V ThomasDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Jennifer B GordetskyDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Sonia GaurMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Stephanie A HarmonClinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc, National Cancer Institute Campus at Frederick, Frederick, Maryland.
Mohummad Minhaj SiddiquiUniversity of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore.
Maria J MerinoLaboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Howard L ParnesDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Bradford J WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute and Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Peter A PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

Prostate Cancer ImagingZIABC010655 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2009 to 2025
$49.2M
Center for Interventional OncologyZIDBC011242 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2009 to 2025
$18.7M
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
6 · The paper itself

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

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAgedBiomarkersCombined Modality TherapyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentTreatment OutcomeUltrasonographyBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID29470570
PMCPMC5885194

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.