ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2019
Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- Head-to-head comparison of diagnostic test accuracy between biparametric and multiparametric MRI: an updated systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic Performance of Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.European urology oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic Ability of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- PI-RADS v2.1 and PSAD for the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer among patients with PSA levels of 4-10 ng/ml.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- AI-Assisted Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Using Biparametric MRI and PI-RADS v2.1: Performance Comparison Between Novice-Level and Experienced Readers.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Empirical noise mapping guides optimal region-of-interest selection for accurate noise estimation in prostate DWI.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Cancer Detection and Surveillance Pathways with Abbreviated MRI in the Prostate, Pancreas, and Liver: A Risk-Stratified Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Implementation of a biparametric prostate MRI protocol with a recall system for intravenous contrast: an analysis of recall rates and comparison of PI-RADS category distribution.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Deep-learning computer-aided detection and classification of prostate lesions on biparametric MRI: comparison with expert readers.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Comparison of Biparametric MRI and Multiparametric MRI Using Split Dynamic MRI in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Article
- The Effect of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Long-term Oncological Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy-A 12-year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.European urology open science · 2025Article
- Comparison of biparameter and multiparameter MRI in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer across PSA stratifications.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Improving risk stratification of PI-RADS 3 + 1 lesions of the peripheral zone: expert lexicon of terms, multi-reader performance and contribution of artificial intelligence.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Article
- Simplatab: An Automated Machine Learning Framework for Radiomics-Based Bi-Parametric MRI Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biparametric MRI-based radiomics for differentiating clinically significant prostate cancer among prostate-specific antigen level of gray zone.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Utility of dynamic contrast enhancement for clinically significant prostate cancer detection.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in a diverse, multiethnic population.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance of MRI in detecting prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen levels of 4-10 ng/mL: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Diffusion kurtosis imaging and standard diffusion imaging in the magnetic resonance imaging assessment of prostate cancer.Gland surgery · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and to explore the application value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI in prostate imaging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study retrospectively enrolled 235 patients with suspected PCa in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2017, and all lesions were histopathologically confirmed. The lesions were scored according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS V2). The bpMRI (T2-weighted imaging [T2WI], diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]/apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC]) and mpMRI (T2WI, DWI/ADC and DCE) scores were recorded to plot the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) for each method were calculated and compared. The patients were further stratified according to bpMRI scores (bpMRI ≥3, and bpMRI = 3, 4, 5) to analyse the difference in DCE MRI between PCa and non-PCa lesions (as well as between csPCa and non-csPCa).
resultsThe AUC values for the bpMRI and mpMRI protocols for PCa were comparable (0.790 [0.732-0.840] and 0.791 [0.733-0.841], respectively). The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of bpMRI for PCa were 76.2, 79.5, 72.6, 75.8, and 76.6%, respectively, and the values for mpMRI were 77.4, 84.4, 69.9, 75.2, and 80.6%, respectively. The AUC values for the bpMRI and mpMRI protocols for the diagnosis of csPCa were similar (0.781 [0.722-0.832] and 0.779 [0.721-0.831], respectively). The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of bpMRI for csPCa were 74.0, 83.8, 66.9, 64.8, and 85.0%, respectively; and 73.6, 87.9, 63.2, 63.2, and 87.8%, respectively, for mpMRI. For patients with bpMRI scores ≥3, positive DCE results were more common in PCa and csPCa lesions (both P = 0.001). Further stratification analysis showed that for patients with a bpMRI score = 4, PCa and csPCa lesions were more likely to have positive DCE results (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively).
conclusionThe diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI is comparable with that of mpMRI in the detection of PCa and the identification of csPCa. DCE MRI is helpful in further identifying PCa and csPCa lesions in patients with bpMRI ≥3, especially bpMRI = 4, which may be conducive to achieving a more accurate PCa risk stratification. Rather than omitting DCE, we think further comprehensive studies are required for prostate MRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.