Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29859119›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2018

Development and internal validation of PI-RADs v2-based model for clinically significant prostate cancer.

Yu Zhang, Na Zeng, Yi Chen Zhu, Yang Xin Rui Huang, Qiang Guo, Ye Tian

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Yu ZhangDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Na ZengNational Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yi Chen ZhuDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yang Xin Rui HuangDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Qiang GuoDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Ye TianDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China. tianye166@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8286-4456

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur objective is to build a model based on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADs v2) and assess its accuracy by internal validation.

methodsPatients who took prostate biopsy from 2014 to 2015 were retrospectively collected to compose training cohort according to the inclusion criteria and patients in 2016 composing validation cohort. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by analyzing the area under the curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curves.

resultsOf the 441 patients involved, the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rate were 40.6% (114/281) and 43.8% (70/160) in the training and validation cohort, respectively. Meanwhile, PCa detection rate were 50.2% (141/281) and 53.8% (86/160). Age, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD)*10 and PI-RADs v2 score composed the model for PCa (model 1) and csPCa (model 2). The area under the curve of models 1 and 2 was 0.870 (95% CI 0.827-0.912) and 0.753 (95% CI 0.717-0.828) in the training cohort, while 0.845 (95% CI 0.786-0.904) and 0.834 (95% CI 0.787-0.882) in the validation cohort. Both models illustrated good calibration, and decision curve analyses showed good performance in predicting PCa or csPCa when the threshold was 0.35 or above.

conclusionsThe model based on age, PSAD*10 and PI-RADs v2 score showed internally validated high predictive value for both PCa and csPCa. It could be used to improve the diagnostic performance of suspicious PCa.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesModels, StatisticalAgedArea Under CurveFollow-Up StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenModelPI-RADs v2Prostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID29859119
PMCPMC5984817

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.