Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29603833›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2018

Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer.

Sonia Gaur, Stephanie Harmon, Sherif Mehralivand, Sandra Bednarova, Brian P Calio, Dordaneh Sugano, Abhinav Sidana, Maria J Merino, Peter A Pinto, Bradford J Wood and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Targeted biopsy added to systematic biopsy improves cancer detection in prostate cancer screening.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Prospective Evaluation ofAJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

13 authors.

Sonia GaurMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Stephanie HarmonMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Sherif MehralivandUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Sandra BednarovaMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Brian P CalioUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Dordaneh SuganoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abhinav SidanaUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Maria J MerinoDepartment of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Peter A PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Bradford J WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Joanna H ShihBiometric Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

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
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CIntramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CL040015Intramural NIH HHS ZID BC011242NCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENULL Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v. 2 (PI-RADSv2) provides standardized nomenclature for interpretation of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Inclusion of additional features for categorization may provide benefit to stratification of disease. PURPOSE: To prospectively compare PI-RADSv2 to a qualitative in-house system for detecting prostate cancer on mpMRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: In all, 338 patients who underwent mpMRI May 2015-May 2016, with subsequent MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH: 3T mpMRI (T ASSESSMENT: One genitourinary radiologist prospectively read mpMRIs using both in-house and PI-RADSv2 5-category systems. STATISTICAL TEST: In lesion-based analysis, overall and clinically significant (CS) tumor detection rates (TDR) were calculated for all PI-RADSv2 and in-house categories. The ability of each scoring system to detect cancer was assessed by area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Within each PI-RADSv2 category, lesions were further stratified by their in-house categories to determine if TDRs can be increased by combining features of both systems.

resultsIn 338 patients (median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 6.5 [0.6-113.6] ng/mL; age 64 [44-84] years), 733 lesions were identified (47% tumor-positive). Predictive abilities of both systems were comparable for all (AUC 76-78%) and CS cancers (AUCs 79%). The in-house system had higher overall and CS TDRs than PI-RADSv2 for categories 3 and 4 (P < 0.01 for both), with the greatest difference between the scoring systems seen in lesions scored category 4 (CS TDRs: in-house 65%, PI-RADSv2 22.1%). For lesions categorized as PI-RADSv2 = 4, characterization of suspicious/indeterminate extraprostatic extension (EPE) and equivocal findings across all mpMRI sequences contributed to significantly different TDRs for both systems (TDR range 19-75%, P < 0.05). DATA

conclusionPI-RADSv2 behaves similarly to an existing validated system that relies on the number of sequences on which a lesion is seen. This prospective evaluation suggests that sequence positivity and suspicion of EPE can enhance PI-RADSv2 category 4 cancer detection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1326-1335.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingUltrasonographyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveBiopsyContrast MediaDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedEarly Detection of CancerHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstateContrast MediaProstate-Specific AntigencancerdetectionmpMRIPI-RADSv2prostate

Identifiers

PMID29603833
PMCPMC6167212

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.