Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30279583›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2019

Prostate Imaging Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound-guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer Risk Evaluation (PICTURE): a prospective cohort validating study assessing Prostate HistoScanning.

Lucy A M Simmons, Abi Kanthabalan, Manit Arya, Tim Briggs, Susan C Charman, Alex Freeman, James Gelister, Charles Jameson, Neil McCartan, Caroline M Moore and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01492270 (PICTURE - Prostate Imaging), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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.

NCT01492270 naunknown statusnot on this map

PICTURE - Prostate Imaging (Multi-parametric MRI and Prostate HistoScanning™) Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy for Significant Prostate Cancer Risk Evaluation.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College London HospitalsRan2011 to 2013Enrolled126ConditionsProstate CancerArmsProstate HistoScanning, Multi-parametric MRI, Transperineal prostate mapping biopsy, Image guided biopsies
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lucy A M SimmonsDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2112-6038
Abi KanthabalanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK.
Manit AryaDepartment of Urology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Tim BriggsDepartment of Urology, The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Susan C CharmanDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Alex FreemanDepartment of Pathology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
James GelisterDepartment of Urology, The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Charles JamesonDepartment of Pathology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Neil McCartanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK.
Caroline M MooreDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK.
Jan van der MuelenDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Mark EmbertonDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK.
Hashim U AhmedDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK. hashim.ahmed@imperial.ac.uk.
University College Hospital · GBRoyal College of Surgeons of England · GBRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Focal HIFU Ablation of Prostate Cancer Using Advanced Ultrasound GuidanceR01CA135089 · NCI · RIVERSIDE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI FELEPPA, ERNEST JOSEPH, SANGHVI, NARENDRA T · 2010 to 2013
$2.1M
Department of Health 09/22/67NCI NIH HHS R01 CA135089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMen with negative prostate biopsies or those diagnosed with low-risk or low-volume intermediate-risk prostate cancers often require a second prostate biopsy prior to a treatment decision. Prostate HistoScanning (PHS) is an ultrasound imaging test that might inform prostate biopsy in such men.

methodsPICTURE was a prospective, paired-cohort validating trial to assess the diagnostic accuracy of imaging in men requiring a further biopsy (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01492270) (11 January 2012-29 January 2014). We enrolled 330 men who had undergone a prior TRUS biopsy but where diagnostic uncertainty remained. All eligible men underwent PHS and transperineal template prostate mapping (TTPM) biopsy (reference standard). Men were blinded to the imaging results until after undergoing TTPM biopsies. We primarily assessed the ability of PHS to rule out clinically significant prostate (negative predictive value [NPV] and sensitivity) for a target histological condition of Gleason ≥4+3 and/or a cancer core length (MCCL) ≥6 mm. We also assessed the role of visually estimated PHS-targeted biopsies.

resultsOf the 330 men enrolled, 249 underwent both PHS and TTPM biopsy. Mean (SD) age was 62 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 6.8 (4.98-9.50) ng/ml, median (IQR) number of previous biopsies 1 (1-2) and mean (SD) gland size 37 (15.5) ml. One hundred and forty six (59%) had no clinically significant cancer. PHS classified 174 (70%) as suspicious. Sensitivity was 70.3% (95% CI 59.8-79.5) and NPV 41.3% (95% CI 27.0-56.8). Specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 14.7% (95% CI 9.1-22.0) and 36.8% (95% CI 29.6-44.4), respectively. In all, 213/220 had PHS suspicious areas targeted with targeting sensitivity 13.6% (95% CI 7.3-22.6), specificity 97.6% (95% CI 93.1-99.5), NPV 61.6% (95% CI 54.5-68.4) and PPV 80.0% (95% CI 51.9-95.7).

conclusionsPHS is not a useful test in men seeking risk stratification following initial prostate biopsy.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyAdultAgedCohort StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPatient Outcome AssessmentProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID30279583
OpenAlexW2894954838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.