Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32479105›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2020

Comparison of Likert and PI-RADS version 2 MRI scoring systems for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Jeries P Zawaideh, Evis Sala, Maria Pantelidou, Nadeem Shaida, Brendan Koo, Iztok Caglic, Anne Y Warren, Luca Carmisciano, Kasra Saeb-Parsy, Vincent J Gnanapragasam and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeries P ZawaidehDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1304-7495
Evis SalaDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Maria PantelidouDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Nadeem ShaidaDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Brendan KooDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Iztok CaglicDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Anne Y WarrenCamPARI Prostate Cancer Group, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Luca CarmiscianoDepartment of health Sciences (DISSAL), Biostatistics section, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Kasra Saeb-ParsyCamPARI Prostate Cancer Group, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Vincent J GnanapragasamCamPARI Prostate Cancer Group, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Christof KastnerCamPARI Prostate Cancer Group, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Tristan BarrettDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the performance of Likert and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) multiparametric (mp) MRI scoring systems for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

methods199 biopsy-naïve males undergoing prostate mpMRI were prospectively scored with Likert and PI-RADS systems by four experienced radiologists. A binary cut-off (threshold score ≥3) was used to analyze histological results by three groups: negative, insignificant disease (Gleason 3 + 3; iPCa), and csPCa (Gleason ≥3 +4). Lesion-level results and prostate zonal location were also compared.

results129/199 (64.8%) males underwent biopsy, 96 with Likert or PI-RADS score ≥3, and 21 with negative MRI. A further 12 patients were biopsied during follow-up (mean 507 days). Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 87/199 (43.7%) patients, 65 with (33.6%) csPCa. 30/92 (32.6%) patients with negative MRI were biopsied, with an NPV of 83.3% for cancer and 86.7% for csPCa. Likert and PI-RADS score differences were observed in 92 patients (46.2%), but only for 16 patients (8%) at threshold score ≥3. Likert scoring had higher specificity than PI-RADS (0.77

conclusionLikert and PI-RADS systems both demonstrate high cancer detection rates. Likert scoring had a higher AUC with moderately higher specificity and lower positive call rate and could potentially help to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies performed. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper illustrates that the Likert scoring system has potential to help urologists reduce the number of prostate biopsies performed.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstateProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID32479105
PMCPMC7446003
OpenAlexW3029005319

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.