Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30201301›Full record

ArticleUrology2018

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Rapid Biparametric MRI Protocol for Detection of Histologically Proven Prostate Cancer.

Verena C Obmann, Shivani Pahwa, William Tabayayong, Yun Jiang, Gregory O'Connor, Sara Dastmalchian, John Lu, Soham Shah, Karin A Herrmann, Raj Paspulati and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06071195 (All-in-One Prostate Cancer Staging with MRI), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT06071195 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

All-in-One Prostate Cancer Staging with MRI

TypeobservationalSponsorEuropean Institute of OncologyRan2021 to 2026Enrolled400ConditionsProstate CancerArmsProstate Cancer Patients
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors.

Verena C ObmannDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Shivani PahwaDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
William TabayayongDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Yun JiangDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Gregory O'ConnorSchool of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Sara DastmalchianDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
John LuSchool of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Soham ShahDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Karin A HerrmannDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Raj PaspulatiDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Gregory MacLennanDepartment of Urology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Lee PonskyDepartment of Urology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Robert AbouassalyDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Vikas GulaniDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Department of Urology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: vxg46@case.edu.

Funding

MR Fingerprinting and Computerized Decision Support for Prostate CancerR01CA208236 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GULANI, VIKAS, PONSKY, LEE EVAN · 2017 to 2022
$3.0M
Comprehensive quantitative ultrafast 3D liver MRIR01DK098503 · NIDDK · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI GULANI, VIKAS, SEIBERLICH, NICOLE · 2013 to 2017
$2.6M
Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF) for Improved High Field MRR01EB017219 · NIBIB · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI GRISWOLD, MARK · 2013 to 2016
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA208236NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017219NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK098503
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of a rapid, low cost, noncontrast MRI examination as a secondary screening tool in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

methodsIn this prospective single institution study, 129 patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels or abnormal digital rectal examination findings underwent MRI with an abbreviated biparamatric MRI protocol consisting of high-resolution axial T2- and diffusion-weighted images. Index lesions were classified according to modified Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System (mPI-RADS) version 2.0. All patients underwent standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy after MRI with the urologist being blinded to MRI results. Subsequently, all patients with suspicious lesions (mPI-RADS 3, 4, or 5) underwent cognitively guided targeted biopsy after discussion of MRI results with the urologist. Sensitivity and negative predictive value for identification of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score 3+4 and above) were determined.

resultsRapid biparametric MRI discovered 176 lesions identified in 129 patients. Rapid MRI detected clinically significant cancers with a sensitivity of 95.1% with a negative predictive value of 95.1% and positive predictive value of 53.2%, leading to a change in management in 10.8% of the patients. False negative rate of biparametric (bp) MRI was 4.7%.

conclusionWe found that a bp-MRI examination can detect clinically significant lesions and changed patient management in 10.8% of the patients. A rapid MRI protocol can be used as a useful secondary screening tool in men presenting with suspicion of prostate cancer.

Indexed as

AgedCost-Benefit AnalysisDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingDigital Rectal ExaminationFalse Negative ReactionsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsSensitivity and SpecificityProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID30201301
PMCPMC6295224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.