Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33447576›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2020

Biparametric (bp) and multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) approach to prostate cancer disease: a narrative review of current debate on dynamic contrast enhancement.

Pierpaolo Palumbo, Rosa Manetta, Antonio Izzo, Federico Bruno, Francesco Arrigoni, Massimo De Filippo, Alessandra Splendiani, Ernesto Di Cesare, Carlo Masciocchi, Antonio Barile

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The use of advanced imaging in guiding the further investigation and treatment of primary prostate cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

10 authors.

Pierpaolo PalumboDepartment of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Rosa ManettaRadiology Unit, San Salvatore Hospital, L'Aquila, Italy.
Antonio IzzoDepartment of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Federico BrunoDepartment of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Francesco ArrigoniDepartment of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Massimo De FilippoDepartment of Medicine and Surgery (DiMec), Section of Radiology, University of Parma, Maggiore Hospital, Parma, Italy.
Alessandra SplendianiDepartment of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Ernesto Di CesareDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Carlo MasciocchiDepartment of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Antonio BarileDepartment of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in male population. Over the last few years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has proved to be a robust clinical tool for identification and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer. Though suggestions by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology to use complete multiparametric (mp) T2-weighted/diffusion weighted imaging (DWI)/dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) acquisition for all prostate MRI examinations, the real advantage of functional DCE remains a matter of debate. Recent studies demonstrate that biparametric (bp) and mp approaches have similar accuracy, but controversial evidences remain, and the specific potential benefits of contrast medium administration are still poorly discussed in literature. The bp approach is in fact sufficient in most cases to adequately identify a negative test, or to accurately define the degree of aggressiveness of a lesion, especially if larger or with major characteristics of malignancy. This feature would give the DCE a secondary role, probably limited to a second evaluation of the lesion location, for detecting small cancer or in case of controversy. However, DCE has proved to increase the sensitivity of prostate MRI, though a less specificity. Therefore, an appropriate decision algorithm is needed to standardize the MRI approach. Aim of this review study was to provide a schematic description of bpMRI and mpMRI approaches in the study of prostatic anatomy, focusing on comparative validity and current DCE application. Additional theoretical considerations on prostate MRI are provided.

Indexed as

biparametricdynamic contrast enhancement (DCE)functional magnetic resonance imaging (functional MRI)multiparametricProstate magnetic resonance imaging (prostate MRI)

Identifiers

PMID33447576
PMCPMC7804542

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.