Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30918223›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine2020

Analysis of Diffusion-weighted MR Images Based on a Gamma Distribution Model to Differentiate Prostate Cancers with Different Gleason Score.

Hiroko Tomita, Shigeyoshi Soga, Yohsuke Suyama, Keiichi Ito, Tomohiko Asano, Hiroshi Shinmoto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Hiroko TomitaDepartment of Radiology, National Defense Medical College.
Shigeyoshi SogaDepartment of Radiology, National Defense Medical College.
Yohsuke SuyamaDepartment of Radiology, National Defense Medical College.
Keiichi ItoDepartment of Urology, National Defense Medical College.
Tomohiko AsanoDepartment of Urology, National Defense Medical College.
Hiroshi ShinmotoDepartment of Radiology, National Defense Medical College.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProstate cancer management includes identification of clinically significant cancers that may require curative treatment. Statistical models based on gamma distribution can describe diffusion signal decay curves of prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of parameters obtained with the gamma model in differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason score values.

methodsThis study included 155 patients with prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prior to prostate biopsy (127 patients) or radical prostatectomy (28 patients) between January 2015 and June 2017; 159 foci of prostate cancer were included in our study. We compared cases scored as Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4, and analyzed cases scored as GS ≤ 3+ 4 and GS ≥ 4 + 3 based on the gamma model (Frac < 1.0, Frac < 0.8, Frac < 0.5, Frac < 0.3, and Frac > 3.0), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC).

resultsAmong 159 cancerous lesions in 155 patients, 13 (8.2%) were GS 3 + 3 prostate cancers, 51 (32.0%) were GS 3 + 4 prostate cancers, 30 (18.2%) were GS 4 + 3 cancers, and 65 (40.9%) were GS ≥ 4 + 4 cancers. Frac < 0.3, Frac < 0.5, Frac < 0.8, and Frac < 1.0 were significantly higher and ADC values were significantly lower in GS ≥ 4 + 3 cancers than in GS ≤ 3 + 4 cancers (P < 0.01, P < 0.01, P < 0.01, P = 0.01, and P < 0.01, respectively). With receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, Frac < 0.3 and Frac < 0.5 had significantly greater area under the ROC curve for discriminating GS ≥ 4 + 3 cancers from GS ≤ 3 + 4 cancers than ADC (P = 0.03, P < 0.01, respectively).

conclusionFrac < 0.3 and Frac < 0.5 showed higher diagnostic performance than ADC for differentiating GS ≥ 4 + 3 from GS ≤ 3 + 4 cancers. The gamma model may add additional value in discrimination of tumor grades.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleNeoplasm GradingProstateProstatic Neoplasmsapparent diffusion coefficientgamma modelGleason scoremagnetic resonance imagingprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID30918223
PMCPMC7067910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.