Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29786491›Full record

ArticleRadiology2018

Validation of PI-RADS Version 2 in Transition Zone Lesions for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Janice N Thai, Harish A Narayanan, Arvin K George, M Minhaj Siddiqui, Parita Shah, Francesca V Mertan, Maria J Merino, Peter A Pinto, Peter L Choyke, Bradford J Wood and 1 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. PI-RADSBritish journal of cancer · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Optimizing prostate cancer accumulating model: combined PI-RADS v2 with prostate specific antigen and its derivative data.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Janice N ThaiFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).ORCID 0000-0001-6828-4036
Harish A NarayananFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).
Arvin K GeorgeFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).
M Minhaj SiddiquiFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).
Parita ShahFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).
Francesca V MertanFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).
Maria J MerinoFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).
Peter A PintoFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).
Peter L ChoykeFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).
Bradford J WoodFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).
Baris TurkbeyFrom the Center for Interventional Oncology (J.N.T., H.A.N., P.S., B.J.W.), Molecular Imaging Program (F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Urologic Oncology Branch (P.A.P.), National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Building 10, MSC 1182, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.K.G.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (M.M.S.).ORCID 0000-0003-0853-6494

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
Intramural NIH HHS ZID BC011242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To determine the association between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 scores and prostate cancer (PCa) in a cohort of patients undergoing biopsy of transition zone (TZ) lesions. Materials and Methods A total of 634 TZ lesions in 457 patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients undergoing prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Prostate lesions were retrospectively categorized with the PI-RADS version 2 system by two readers in consensus who were blinded to histopathologic findings. The proportion of cancer detection for all PCa and for clinically important PCa (Gleason score ≥3+4) for each PI-RADS version 2 category was determined. The performance of PI-RADS version 2 in cancer detection was evaluated. Results For PI-RADS category 2 lesions, the overall proportion of cancers was 4% (one of 25), without any clinically important cancer. For PI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 lesions, the overall proportion of cancers was 22.2% (78 of 352), 39.1% (43 of 110), and 87.8% (129 of 147), respectively, and the proportion of clinically important cancers was 11.1% (39 of 352), 29.1% (32 of 110), and 77.6% (114 of 147), respectively. Higher PI-RADS version 2 scores were associated with increasing likelihood of the presence of clinically important PCa (P < .001). Differences were found in the percentage of cancers in the PI-RADS category between PI-RADS 3 and those upgraded to PI-RADS 4 based on diffusion-weighted imaging for clinically important cancers (proportion for clinically important cancers for PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 3+1 were 11.1% [39 of 352] and 30.8% [28 of 91], respectively; P < .001). Conclusion Higher PI-RADS version 2 scores are associated with a higher proportion of clinically important cancers in the TZ. PI-RADS category 2 lesions rarely yield PCa, and their presence does not justify targeted biopsy.

Indexed as

Radiology Information SystemsAgedHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstateProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29786491
PMCPMC6071681

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.