Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33007183›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2021

When to biopsy Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) assessment category 3 lesions? Use of clinical and imaging variables to predict cancer diagnosis at targeted biopsy.

Christopher S Lim, Jorge Abreu-Gomez, Michel-Alexandre Leblond, Ivan Carrion, Danny Vesprini, Nicola Schieda, Laurence Klotz

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. What do you do with PI-RADS-3?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher S LimDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jorge Abreu-GomezDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michel-Alexandre LeblondDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ivan CarrionDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Danny VespriniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Nicola SchiedaDepartment of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Laurence KlotzDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAHealth Sciences Centre · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe aimed to determine if clinical and imaging features can stratify men at higher risk for clinically significant (CS, International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade group ≥2) prostate cancer (PCa) in equivocal Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) category 3 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

methodsApproved by the institutional review board, this retrospective study involved 184 men with 198 lesions who underwent 3T-MRI and MRI-directed transrectal ultrasound biopsy for PI-RADS 3 lesions. Men were evaluated including clinical stage, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD), indication, and MRI lesion size. Diagnoses for all men and by indication (no cancer, any PCa, CSPCa) were compared using multivariate logistic regression, including stage, PSAD, and lesion size.

resultsWe found an overall PCa rate of 31.8% (63/198) and 10.1% (20/198) CSPCa (13 grade group 2, five group 3, and two group 4). Higher stage (p=0.001), PSAD (p=0.007), and lesion size (p=0.015) were associated with CSPCa, with no association between CSPCa and age, PSA, or prostate volume (p>0.05). PSAD modestly predicted CSPCa area under the curve (AUC) 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.518-0.794) in all men and 0.64 (0.487-0.799) for those on active surveillance (AS). Model combining clinical stage, PSAD, and lesion size improved accuracy for all men and AS (AUC 0.82 [0.736-0.910], p<0.001 and 0.785 [0.666-0.904], p<0.001). In men with prior negative biopsy and persistent suspicion, PSAD (0.90 [0.767-1.000]) was not different from the model (p>0.05), with optimal cutpoint of ≥0.215 ng/mL/cc achieving sensitivity/specificity of 85.7/84.4%.

conclusionsPI-RADSv2 category 3 lesions are often not CSPCa. PSAD predicted CSPCa in men with a prior negative biopsy; however, PSAD alone had limited value, and accuracy improved when using a model incorporating PSAD with clinical stage and MRI lesion size.

Identifiers

PMID33007183
PMCPMC8021423
OpenAlexW3091246246

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.