Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32192942›Full record

SynthesisEuropean urology oncology2020

Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

Armando Stabile, Francesco Giganti, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Gianluca Giannarini, Caroline M Moore, Anwar R Padhani, Valeria Panebianco, Andrew B Rosenkrantz, Georg Salomon, Baris Turkbey and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European urology oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison ofFrontiers in oncology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.

Armando StabileDepartment of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: armando.stabile88@gmail.com.
Francesco GigantiDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Veeru KasivisvanathanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Gianluca GiannariniUrology Unit, Academic Medical Centre, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Udine, Italy.
Caroline M MooreDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Anwar R PadhaniPaul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
Valeria PanebiancoDepartment of Radiology, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
Andrew B RosenkrantzDepartment of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Georg SalomonProstate Cancer Center, Martini-Klinik Hamburg, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Geert VilleirsDepartment of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Jelle O BarentszDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBGhent University Hospital · BEMount Vernon Cancer Centre · GBNational Cancer Institute · USNYU Langone Health · USOspedale Santa Maria della Misericordia di Udine · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · ITRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversität Hamburg · DEVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

Prostate Cancer ImagingZ01BC010655 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2005 to 2008
$2.1M
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 BC010655
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThere is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detect and localize clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

objectiveTo systematically review the current literature assessing the factors influencing the variability of mpMRI performance in csPCa diagnosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A computerized bibliographic search of Medline/PubMed database was performed for all studies assessing magnetic field strength, use of an endorectal coil, assessment system used by radiologists and inter-reader variability, experience of radiologists and urologists, use of a contrast agent, and use of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools in relation to mpMRI diagnostic accuracy. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 77 articles were included. Both radiologists' reading experience and urologists'/radiologists' biopsy experience were the main factors that influenced diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, it is mandatory to indicate the experience of the interpreting radiologists and biopsy-performing urologists to support the reliability of the findings. The most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines are recommended for use as the main assessment system for csPCa, given the simplified and standardized approach as well as its particular added value for less experienced radiologists. Biparametric MRI had similar accuracy to mpMRI; however, biparametric MRI performed better with experienced readers. The limited data available suggest that the combination of CAD and radiologist readings may influence diagnostic accuracy positively.

conclusionsMultiple factors affect the accuracy of mpMRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to detect and localize csPCa. The high heterogeneity across the studies underlines the need to define the experience of radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent PI-RADS assessment guidelines. Further research is needed to clarify which factors impact the accuracy of the MRI pathway and how. PATIENT SUMMARY: We systematically reported the factors influencing the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). These factors are significantly related to each other, with the experience of the radiologists being the dominating factor. In order to deliver the benefits of mpMRI to diagnose csPCa, it is necessary to develop expertise for both radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment guidelines.

Indexed as

HumansMaleMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsDiagnosis, Multiparametric magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerTargeted biopsy

Identifiers

PMID32192942
PMCPMC8942295
OpenAlexW3011342404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.