Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32211965›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Effect of observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in PI-RADS v2.1 assessment category 4 and 5 observations compared to adverse pathological outcomes.

Jorge Abreu-Gomez, Daniel Walker, Tareq Alotaibi, Matthew D F McInnes, Trevor A Flood, Nicola Schieda

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jorge Abreu-GomezDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Avenue, C1 Radiology, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Daniel WalkerDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Avenue, C1 Radiology, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Tareq AlotaibiDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Avenue, C1 Radiology, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Matthew D F McInnesDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Avenue, C1 Radiology, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Trevor A FloodDepartment of Anatomical Pathology, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nicola SchiedaDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Avenue, C1 Radiology, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada. nschieda@toh.on.ca.
Ottawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 category 4 and 5 observations to adverse pathological features. MATERIALS AND

methodsWith institutional review board approval, 267 consecutive men with 3-T MRI before radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2012 and 2018 were evaluated by two blinded radiologists who assigned PI-RADS v2.1 scores. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A third blinded radiologist measured observation size and ADC (ADC.mean, ADC.min [lowest ADC within an observation], ADC.ratio [ADC.mean/ADC.peripheral zone {PZ}]). Size and ADC were compared to pathological stage and Gleason score (GS) using t tests, ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

resultsConsensus review identified 267 true positive category 4 and 5 observations representing 83.1% (222/267) PZ and 16.9% (45/267) transition zone (TZ) tumors. Inter-observer agreement for PI-RADS v2.1 scoring was moderate (K = 0.45). Size was associated with extra-prostatic extension (EPE) (19 ± 8 versus 14 ± 6 mm, p < 0.001) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (24 ± 9 versus 16 ± 7 mm, p < 0.001). Size ≥ 15 mm optimized the accuracy for EPE with area under the ROC curve (AUC) and sensitivity/specificity of 0.68 (CI 0.62-0.75) and 63.2%/65.6%. Size ≥ 19 mm optimized the accuracy for SVI with AUC/sensitivity/specificity of 0.75 (CI 0.66-0.83)/69.4%/70.6%. ADC metrics were not associated with pathological stage. Larger observation size (p = 0.032), lower ADC.min (p = 0.010), and lower ADC.ratio (p = 0.010) were associated with higher GS. Size correlated better to higher Gleason scores (p = 0.002) compared to ADC metrics (p = 0.09-0.11).

conclusionAmong PI-RADS v2.1 category 4 and 5 observations, size was associated with higher pathological stage whereas ADC metrics were not. Size, ADC.minimum, and ADC.ratio differed in tumors stratified by Gleason score. KEY POINTS: • Among PI-RADS category 4 and 5 observations, size but not ADC can differentiate between tumors by pathological stage. • An observation size threshold of 15 mm and 19 mm optimized the accuracy for diagnosis of extra-prostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion. • Among PI-RADS category 4 and 5 observations, size, ADC.minimum, and ADC.ratio differed comparing tumors by Gleason score.

Indexed as

AgedDiffusionDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSeminal VesiclesMagnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm gradingNeoplasm stagingProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID32211965
OpenAlexW3013278003

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.