Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30429594›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2019

The role of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score in Gleason 3 + 3 active surveillance candidates enrollment: a diagnostic meta-analysis.

Lingyun Zhai, Yu Fan, Yisen Meng, Xueru Feng, Wei Yu, Jie Jin

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Lingyun ZhaiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yu FanDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yisen MengDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xueru FengDepartment of Geriatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wei YuDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China. yuweif@126.com.
Jie JinDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China. jinjie@vip.163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe contemporary active surveillance (AS) criteria may result in an unsatisfactory misclassification rate, which may delay curative treatment for prostate cancer patients. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), not included in any AS criteria, provides useful information for prostate cancer diagnosis. Our goal is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (PI-RADS) score, a standardized MRI reporting system, in AS candidates enrollment.

methodsWe searched Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase for pertinent studies through June 2018. The standard methods recommended for meta-analyses of diagnostic evaluation were employed. We draw the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Meta-regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of confounding factors.

resultsFrom the resulting 168 studies, 5 provided the diagnostic data on PI-RADS score and pathological results; 834 patients were included. All AS candidates in these studies were defined by Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criterion. The pooled estimates of PI-RADS 4 or 5 on adverse pathological features at radical prostatectomy (RP) among AS candidates were: sensitivity, 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.82); specificity, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.55-0.71); positive predictive value, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79); negative predictive value, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63-0.73); and diagnostic odds ratio, 6 (95% CI, 4-8). The SROC curve was positioned toward the desired upper left corner of the curve, the area under the curve was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80). The P-value for heterogeneity was <0.01. The pathological outcomes and endorectal coils contributed to the heterogeneity of sensitivity. The evidences supporting the advantage of PI-RADS v2 over v1 were not sufficient yet.

conclusionAS candidates with PI-RADS 4 or 5 may be unsuitable for AS even though they fulfill current AS criteria. Those with PI-RADS 3 or less indicated relative safety for AS enrollment.

Indexed as

Neoplasm GradingWatchful WaitingData Interpretation, StatisticalData SystemsEarly Detection of CancerHumansImage-Guided BiopsyImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstatic NeoplasmsPublication BiasReproducibility of ResultsROC Curve

Identifiers

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.