Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33770224›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021

The absolute tumor-capsule contact length in the diagnosis of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer.

Kulyada Eurboonyanun, Nisanard Pisuchpen, Aileen O'Shea, Rita Maria Lahoud, Isha D Atre, Mukesh Harisinghani

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kulyada EurboonyanunAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Nisanard PisuchpenAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA. Nisanard.P@chula.ac.th.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9082-2977
Aileen O'SheaAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Rita Maria LahoudAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Isha D AtreAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Mukesh HarisinghaniAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USKhon Kaen University · THKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. The broad-based capsule-tumor interface has been recognized as one of the worrisome imaging features in multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI). However, there was significant heterogeneity among the measurement method used in prior studies.

objectivesThis study's objectives were to investigate and compare the accuracy between the curvilinear and linear measurement, find the optimal cut-off contact surface threshold for the diagnosis of EPE, and assess the benefit of the additional contact surface measurement versus visual assessment alone.

methodsThe status of EPE in mpMRI and the overall PI-RADS were assessed. The tumor's dimensions, the actual tumor-capsule contact length (ACTCL), and the absolute tumor-capsule contact length (ABTCL) were measured. The parameters were analyzed and correlated with the EPE status from prostatectomy specimens.

resultsNinety-five patients who underwent mpMRI followed by prostatectomy were included in the study. High Gleason score (score 8-9), radiologist's impression of EPE, and PI-RADS 5 were significantly correlated with EPE in surgical specimens (p = 0.014, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Both ACTCL and ABTCL of patients with EPE were significantly higher than those without EPE in all imaging sequences (p < 0.001 to p = 0.003). The ABTCL has higher accuracy than the ACTCL. Dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) was the most accurate sequence to measure the contact interface. The recommended cut-off value of ABTCL was 15.0 mm, which had a sensitivity and specificity of 75.86% and 72.09%. Multivariable analysis revealed that the ABTCL > 15 mm and the radiologist's impression on visual assessment were the only two independent predictors for the prediction of EPE (p = 0.048 and p = 0.016, respectively). Improvement of diagnostic performance was achieved when the two factors were combined.

conclusionThe ABTCL has better accuracy than the curvilinear measurement in the prediction of EPE. The optimum sequence for the measurement of the contact surface is the DCE. We recommended using 15.0 mm as a cut-off point. CLINICAL IMPACT: The addition of the ABTCL measurement showed an increase in diagnostic performance. We encourage radiologists to use the capsular contact measurement in addition to their visual assessment to detect EPE in pre-operative MRI.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstatectomyRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33770224
OpenAlexW3137428133

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.