Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32829418›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Clinical utility of the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System for muscle-invasive bladder cancer between radiologists and urologists based on multiparametric MRI including 3D FSE T2-weighted acquisitions.

Yuki Arita, Keisuke Shigeta, Hirotaka Akita, Tatsuya Suzuki, Ryohei Kufukihara, Thomas C Kwee, Ryota Ishii, Shuji Mikami, Shigeo Okuda, Eiji Kikuchi and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. MRI evaluation of vesical imaging reporting and data system for bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Yuki AritaDepartment of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35, Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Keisuke ShigetaDepartment of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Hirotaka AkitaDepartment of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35, Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Tatsuya SuzukiDepartment of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35, Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Ryohei KufukiharaDepartment of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Thomas C KweeDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ryota IshiiBiostatistics Unit, Clinical and Translational Research Center, Keio University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Shuji MikamiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Keio University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Shigeo OkudaDepartment of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35, Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Eiji KikuchiDepartment of Urology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan.
Mototsugu OyaDepartment of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Masahiro JinzakiDepartment of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35, Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan. jinzaki@rad.med.keio.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8241-6565

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the clinical utility of the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) by comparing its diagnostic performance for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) between radiologists and urologists based on multiparametric MRI, including three-dimensional (3D) fast spin-echo (FSE) T2-weighted acquisitions.

methodsThis study included 66 treatment-naïve patients (60 men, 6 women; mean age 74.0 years) with pathologically proven bladder cancer who underwent multiparametric MRI, including 3D FSE T2-weighted imaging, before transurethral bladder tumour resection between January 2010 and November 2018. The MRI scans were categorised according to the five-point VI-RADS score by four independent readers (two board-certified radiologists and board-certified urologists each), blinded to the histopathological findings. The VI-RADS scores were compared with the postoperative histopathological diagnosis. Interobserver agreement was assessed using weighted kappa coefficients. ROC analysis and generalised estimating equations were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance.

resultsForty-nine (74.2%) and 17 (25.8%) tumours were confirmed to be non-MIBC and MIBC, respectively, based on pathological examination. The interobserver agreement was good-to-excellent between all pairs of readers (range, 0.73-0.91). The urologists' sensitivity/specificity values for DCE-MRI VI-RADS scores were significantly lower than those of radiologists. No significant differences were observed for the overall VI-RADS score. The AUC for the overall VI-RADS score was 0.94, 0.92, 0.89, and 0.87 for radiologists 1 and 2 and urologists 1 and 2, respectively.

conclusionsThe VI-RADS score, based on multiparametric MRI including 3D FSE T2-weighted acquisitions, can be useful for radiologists and urologists to determine the bladder cancer muscle invasion status preoperatively. KEY POINTS: • VI-RADS (using multiparametric MRI including 3D FSE T2-weighted acquisitions) achieves good to excellent interobserver agreement and has similar diagnostic performance for detecting muscle invasion by both radiologists and urologists. • The diagnostic performance of the overall VI-RADS score is high for both radiologists and urologists, particularly due to the dominant effect of diffusion-weighted imaging on the overall VI-RADS score. • The sensitivity and specificity values of the T2WI VI-RADS scores for four readers in our study (using 3D FSE T2-weighted acquisitions) were similar (with slightly higher specificity values) to previously published results (using 2D FSE T2-weighted acquisitions).

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMusclesRadiologistsSensitivity and SpecificityUrologistsContrast mediaDiffusionMagnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm stagingUrinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

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.