ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2019
Predictive role of PI-RADSv2 and ADC parameters in differentiating Gleason pattern 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 prostate cancer.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic pathway on oncologic outcomes of localised prostate cancer between primary treatment modalities: a Will-Rogers phenomenon?World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of ADC and ADC ratio in differentiating Gleason Score 7 in prostate cancer imaging.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Multiparametric MRI to Predict Gleason Score Upgrading and Downgrading at Radical Prostatectomy Compared to Presurgical Biopsy.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- The value of apparent diffusion coefficient values in predicting Gleason grading of low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Early change in apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and external beam radiation therapy for intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer.Clinical radiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Quantitative diffusion MRI in prostate cancer: Image quality, what we can measure and how it improves clinical assessment.European journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Quantitative ADC: An Additional Tool in the Evaluation of Prostate Cancer?Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical and prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings as predictors of general and clinically significant prostate cancer risk: A retrospective single-center study.Current urology · 2023Article
- Correlation between ADC, ADC ratio, and Gleason Grade group in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Retrospective multicenter study with different MRI scanners.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Variability in contrast and apparent diffusion coefficient of kiwifruit used as prostate MRI phantom: 1-week validation.Radiological physics and technology · 2022Article
- Biparametric prostate MRI: impact of a deep learning-based software and of quantitative ADC values on the inter-reader agreement of experienced and inexperienced readers.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- Non-timely clinically applicable ADC ratio in prostate mpMRI: a comparison with fusion biopsy results.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Article
- DWI-related texture analysis for prostate cancer: differences in correlation with histological aggressiveness and data repeatability between peripheral and transition zones.European radiology experimental · 2022Article
- Clinical application and progress of quantitative functional magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2021Article
- The utility of ADC parameters in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer by 3.0-Tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.Polish journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Review
- Evaluation of relationships between the final Gleason score, PI-RADS v2 score, ADC value, PSA level, and tumor diameter in patients that underwent radical prostatectomy due to prostate cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2020Article
- Prediction of Pathological Upgrading at Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Texture Features and Machine Learning-Based Analysis of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Maps.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Correlation between ADC values and Gleason score in evaluation of prostate cancer: multicentre experience and review of the literature.Gland surgery · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the predictive roles of qualitative (PI-RADSv2) and quantitative assessment (ADC metrics), in differentiating Gleason pattern (GP) 3 + 4 from the more aggressive GP 4 + 3 prostate cancer (PCa) using radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen as the reference standard.
methodsWe retrospectively identified treatment-naïve peripheral (PZ) and transitional zone (TZ) Gleason Score 7 PCa patients who underwent multiparametric 3T prostate MRI (DWI with b value of 0,1400 and where unavailable, 0,500) and subsequent RP from 2011 to 2015. For each lesion identified on MRI, a PI-RADSv2 score was assigned by a radiologist blinded to pathology data. A PI-RADSv2 score ≤ 3 was defined as "low risk," a PI-RADSv2 score ≥ 4 as "high risk" for clinically significant PCa. Mean tumor ADC (ADC
results119 out of 645 cases initially identified met eligibility requirements. 76 lesions were GP 3 + 4, 43 were 4 + 3. ADC
conclusionsADC metrics could differentiate GP 3 + 4 from 4 + 3 PCa with high specificity and moderate accuracy while PI-RADSv2, did not differentiate between these patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.