Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32676426›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2020

Comparison of cross-sectional imaging techniques for the detection of prostate cancer lymph node metastasis: a critical review.

Amir H Lebastchi, Nikhil Gupta, John M DiBianco, Morand Piert, Matthew S Davenport, Michael A Ahdoot, Sandeep Gurram, Jonathan B Bloom, Patrick T Gomella, Sherif Mehralivand and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and Prostate Cancer Staging: is our current conventional staging obsolete?International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    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

13 authors.

Amir H LebastchiUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Nikhil GuptaUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
John M DiBiancoDepartment of Urology, George Washington University Medical School, Washington D.C., USA.
Morand PiertDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Matthew S DavenportDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michael A AhdootUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sandeep GurramUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Jonathan B BloomUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Patrick T GomellaUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sherif MehralivandMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Peter A PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Arvin K GeorgeDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional staging for prostate cancer (PCa) is performed for men diagnosed with unfavorable-intermediate or higher risk disease. Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis and whole body bone scan remains the standard of care for the detection of visceral, nodal, and bone metastasis. The implementation of the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against routine prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening resulted in a rise of metastatic PCa at the time of diagnosis, emphasizing the importance of effective imaging modalities for evaluating metastatic disease. CT plays a major role in clinical staging at the time of PCa diagnosis, but multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now integrated into many prostate biopsy protocols for the detection of primary PCa, and may be a surrogate for CT for nodal staging. Current guidelines incorporate both CT and MRI as appropriate cross-sectional imaging modalities for the identification of nodal metastasis in indicated patients. There is an ongoing debate about the utility of traditional cross-sectional imaging modalities as well as advanced imaging modalities in detection of both organ-confined PCa detection and nodal involvement.

Indexed as

computed tomography (CT)lymph nodes (LNs)magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)metastatic prostate cancerProstate cancer (PCa)

Identifiers

PMID32676426
PMCPMC7354341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.