Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31172275›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2019

The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer.

Jonathan Richenberg, Vibeke Løgager, Valeria Panebianco, Olivier Rouviere, Geert Villeirs, Ivo G Schoots

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Jonathan RichenbergDepartment of Imaging, Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust and Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, BN2 5BE, UK. jonathan.richenberg@bsuh.nhs.uk.
Vibeke LøgagerDepartment of Radiology, Herlev University Hospital Copenhagen University, Herlev, Denmark.
Valeria PanebiancoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Olivier RouviereHospices civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Radiology, hôpital Édouard-Herriot, 69437, Lyon, France.
Geert VilleirsDepartment of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Ivo G SchootsDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Brighton and Sussex Medical School · GBErasmus MC · NLGhent University Hospital · BEHerlev Hospital · DKSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiparametric MRI (mpMRI) became recognised in investigating those with suspected prostate cancer between 2010 and 2012; in the USA, the preventative task force moratorium on PSA screening was a strong catalyst. In a few short years, it has been adopted into daily urological and oncological practice. The pace of clinical uptake, born along by countless papers proclaiming high accuracy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, has sparked much debate about the timing of mpMRI within the traditional biopsy-driven clinical pathways. There are strongly held opposing views on using mpMRI as a triage test regarding the need for biopsy and/or guiding the biopsy pattern.

objectiveTo review the evidence base and present a position paper on the role of mpMRI in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

methodsA subgroup of experts from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group conducted literature review and face to face and electronic exchanges to draw up a position statement.

resultsThis paper considers diagnostic strategies for clinically significant prostate cancer; current national and international guidance; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI in detection of clinically significant and clinically insignificant neoplasms; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI on biopsy strategies and targeting; the notion of mpMRI within a wider risk evaluation on a patient by patient basis; the problems that beset mpMRI including inter-observer variability.

conclusionsThe paper concludes with a set of suggestions for using mpMRI to influence who to biopsy and who not to biopsy at diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Adopt mpMRI as the first, and primary, investigation in the workup of men with suspected prostate cancer. • PI-RADS assessment categories 1 and 2 have a high negative predictive value in excluding significant disease, and systematic biopsy may be postponed, especially in men with low-risk of disease following additional risk stratification. • PI-RADS assessment category lesions 4 and 5 should be targeted; PI-RADS assessment category lesion 3 may be biopsied as a target, as part of systematic biopsies or may be observed depending on risk stratification.

Indexed as

AgedBiopsyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingObserver VariationProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentTriageProstate-Specific AntigenBiopsyMagnetic resonance imagingObserver variationProstate cancerRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID31172275
PMCPMC6828624
OpenAlexW2954579658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.