Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31468130›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Necessity of differentiating small (< 10 mm) and large (≥ 10 mm) PI-RADS 4.

Sung Yoon Park, Byung Kwan Park

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Sung Yoon ParkDepartment of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-dong, Gangnam-ku, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea.
Byung Kwan ParkDepartment of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-dong, Gangnam-ku, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea. rapark@skku.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4114-8859

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProstate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) provides reasonable performance in detecting significant cancers. Still, it is unclear about whether all PI-RADS 4 lesions show the same cancer detection rate (CDR) regardless of tumor size. The aim was to compare the CDRs of small (< 10 mm) and large (≥ 10 mm) PI-RADS 4.

methodsAfter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in 684 men, a radiologist interpreted the MR images and detected 281 index lesions categorized as PI-RADS 4 in 281 men. PI-RADS 4 lesions were divided into small and large groups on size of 10 mm. Overall and significant CDRs were compared between the groups. A significant cancer was defined as one with Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7 or tumor volume ≥ 0.5 ml. Tumor volumes were roughly calculated as πr

resultsThe overall CDRs of small and large groups were 39.0% (53/136) and 59.3% (86/145), respectively, (p = 0.0008). The median tumor volumes of cancer-proven small and large groups were 0.18 ml (0.01-0.38 ml) and 0.70 ml (0.52-1.44 ml), respectively (p < 0.0001). Using GS or tumor volume, the significant CDRs of these groups were 26.5% (36/136) and 59.3% (86/145), respectively (p < 0.0001), and using GS alone, 26.5% (36/136) and 39.3% (57/145), respectively (p = 0.0232).

conclusionsPI-RADS 4 lesions should be sub-divided on size of 10 mm because of different significant CDRs.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsRadiologyRetrospective StudiesTumor BurdenBiopsyMagnetic resonance imagingProstate adenocarcinomaProstate Imaging Reporting and Data SystemTransrectal ultrasound

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.