Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33211143›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Bladder cancer: do we need contrast injection for MRI assessment of muscle invasion? A prospective multi-reader VI-RADS approach.

Andrea Delli Pizzi, Domenico Mastrodicasa, Michele Marchioni, Giulia Primiceri, Francesca Di Fabio, Roberta Cianci, Barbara Seccia, Barbara Sessa, Erica Mincuzzi, Martina Romanelli and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
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 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Evaluating biparametric MRI for diagnosing muscle-invasive bladder cancer with variant urothelial histology: a multicenter study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea Delli PizziDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Via Luigi Polacchi 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy. andreadellipizzi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2011-3753
Domenico MastrodicasaDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Michele MarchioniDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, Urology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Giulia PrimiceriDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, Urology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Francesca Di FabioDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Via Luigi Polacchi 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Roberta CianciDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Via Luigi Polacchi 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Barbara SecciaDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Via Luigi Polacchi 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Barbara SessaDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Via Luigi Polacchi 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Erica MincuzziDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Via Luigi Polacchi 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Martina RomanelliDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Via Luigi Polacchi 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Pietro CastellanDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, Urology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Roberto CastellucciDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, Urology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Antonella ColasanteSurgical Pathology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, Chieti, Italy.
Luigi SchipsDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, Urology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Raffaella BasilicoDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Via Luigi Polacchi 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Massimo CauloDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Via Luigi Polacchi 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
University of Chieti-Pescara · ITOspedale SS. Annunziata · ITStanford University · US

Funding

Multi-Disciplinary Training Program in Cardiovascular Imaging at StanfordT32EB009035 · NIBIB · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Koen Nieman, John M. Pauly · 2008 to 2026
$4.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB009035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives(1) To investigate whether a contrast-free biparametric MRI (bp-MRI) including T2-weighted images (T2W) and diffusion-weighted images (DWI) can be considered an accurate alternative to the standard multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI), consisting of T2, DWI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for the muscle-invasiveness assessment of bladder cancer (BC), and (2) to evaluate how the diagnostic performance of differently experienced readers is affected according to the type of MRI protocol.

methodsThirty-eight patients who underwent a clinically indicated bladder mp-MRI on a 3-T scanner were prospectively enrolled. Trans-urethral resection of bladder was the gold standard. Two sets of images, set 1 (bp-MRI) and set 2 (mp-MRI), were independently reviewed by four readers. Descriptive statistics, including sensitivity and specificity, were calculated for each reader. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed, and the areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated for the bp-MRI and the standard mp-MRI. Pairwise comparison of the ROC curves was performed.

resultsThe AUCs for bp- and mp-MRI were respectively 0.91-0.92 (reader 1), 0.90 (reader 2), 0.95-0.90 (reader 3), and 0.90-0.87 (reader 4). Sensitivity was 100% for both protocols and specificity ranged between 79.31 and 89.66% and between 79.31 and 83.33% for bp-MRI and mp-MRI, respectively. No significant differences were shown between the two MRI protocols (p > 0.05). No significant differences were shown accordingly to the reader's experience (p > 0.05).

conclusionsA bp-MRI protocol consisting of T2W and DWI has comparable diagnostic accuracy to the standard mp-MRI protocol for the detection of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The experience of the reader does not significantly affect the diagnostic performance using VI-RADS. KEY POINTS: • The contrast-free MRI protocol shows a comparable accuracy to the standard multiparametric MRI protocol in the bladder cancer muscle-invasiveness assessment. • VI-RADS classification helps non-expert radiologists to assess the muscle-invasiveness of bladder cancer. • DCE should be carefully interpreted by less experienced readers due to inflammatory changes representing a potential pitfall.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsContrast MediaDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMusclesProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaBladder cancerContrast mediaDiffusion magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID33211143
PMCPMC8128729
OpenAlexW3099883106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.