Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30038389›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2018

Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications.

Niranjan J Sathianathen, Badrinath R Konety, Ayman Soubra, Gregory J Metzger, Benjamin Spilseth, Paari Murugan, Christopher J Weight, Maria A Ordonez, Christopher A Warlick

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 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. A comparative study ofBMC medical imaging · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Niranjan J SathianathenDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. nsathian@umn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3710-014X
Badrinath R KonetyDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Ayman SoubraDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Gregory J MetzgerDepartment of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Benjamin SpilsethDepartment of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Paari MuruganDepartment of Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Christopher J WeightDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Maria A OrdonezDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Christopher A WarlickDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMagnetic resonance imaging is being widely adopted in the clinical management of prostate cancer. The correlation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) to the presence of cancer has been established but studies have primarily evaluated this in a single clinical setting. This study aims to characterize the correlation of PIRADS score to the diagnosis of cancer on fusion biopsy among men who are undergoing primary biopsy, those who have had a previous negative biopsy or men on active surveillance. MATERIALS &

methodsA consecutive sample of men undergoing US-MR biopsy at a single academic institution from 2014 to 2017 were included in this retrospective study. Men were stratified into groups according to their clinical history: biopsy-naïve, previous negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy or on active surveillance. The correlation of PIRADS score to the diagnosis of any and clinically significant cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4) was determined.

resultsA total of 255 patients with 365 discrete lesions were analyzed. PIRADS score 1-2, 3, 4 and 5 yielded any prostate cancer in 7.7, 29.7, 42.3 and 82.4% of the cases, respectively, across all indications while clinically significant cancer was found in 0, 8.9, 21.4 and 62.7%, respectively. The area under the receiver operative curves for the diagnosis of any and significant cancer was 0.69 (95%CI: 0.64-0.74) and 0.74 (95%CI: 0.69-0.79) respectively. Men who have had a previous negative biopsy had lower detection rates for any prostate cancer for PIRADS 3 and 4 lesions compared to those that were biopsy-naïve or on active surveillance.

conclusionCancer detection rates are significantly associated with PIRADS score. Biopsy yields differ across biopsy indications which should be considered when selecting a PIRADS score threshold for biopsy. Biopsy of PIRADS 3 lesions could potentially be avoided in men who have previously undergone a negative TRUS biopsy.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID30038389

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.