Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29908876›Full record

GuidelineEuropean urology2019

Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Anwar R Padhani, Jeffrey Weinreb, Andrew B Rosenkrantz, Geert Villeirs, Baris Turkbey, Jelle Barentsz

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in European urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

122 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy with and without PSMA-PET-Targeted Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Biopsy strategies in the era of mpMRI: a comprehensive review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025
    Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anwar R PadhaniPaul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
Jeffrey WeinrebDepartment of Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, USA.
Andrew B RosenkrantzDepartment of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Geert VilleirsDepartment of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program NCI, Bethesda, USA.
Jelle BarentszRadboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jelle.barentsz@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 analysis system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) detection of prostate cancer (PCa) is based on PI-RADS v1, accumulated scientific evidence, and expert consensus opinion.

objectiveTo summarize the accuracy, strengths and weaknesses of PI-RADS v2, discuss pathway implications of its use and outline opportunities for improvements and future developments. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: For this consensus expert opinion from the PI-RADS steering committee, clinical studies, systematic reviews, and professional guidelines for mpMRI PCa detection were evaluated. We focused on the performance characteristics of PI-RADS v2, comparing data to systems based on clinicoradiologic Likert scales and non-PI-RADS v2 imaging only. Evidence selections were based on high-quality, prospective, histologically verified data, with minimal patient selection and verifications biases. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: It has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice retains higher accuracy over systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsies for PCa diagnosis. PI-RADS v2 fails to detect all cancers but does detect the majority of tumors capable of causing patient harm, which should not be missed. Test performance depends on the definition and prevalence of clinically significant disease. Good performance can be attained in practice when the quality of the diagnostic process can be assured, together with joint working of robustly trained radiologists and urologists, conducting biopsy procedures within multidisciplinary teams.

conclusionsIt has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice is improved, retaining higher accuracy over systematic TRUS biopsies for PCa diagnosis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-directed biopsies using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System improves the detection of prostate cancers likely to cause harm, and at the same time decreases the detection of disease that does not lead to harms if left untreated. The keys to success are high-quality imaging, reporting, and biopsies by radiologists and urologists working together in multidisciplinary teams.

Indexed as

ConsensusDiffusion of InnovationForecastingHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance Imaging, InterventionalMalePredictive Value of TestsPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsMRIPI-RADSProstate cancerTRUS

Identifiers

PMID29908876
PMCPMC6292742

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.