Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34006281›Full record

ArticleBMC urology2021

The role of mpMRI in qualification of patients with ISUP 1 prostate cancer on biopsy to radical prostatectomy.

Łukasz Nyk, Omar Tayara, Tomasz Ząbkowski, Piotr Kryst, Aneta Andrychowicz, Wojciech Malewski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Łukasz NykSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Omar TayaraSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Tomasz ZąbkowskiDepartment of Urology, Military Institute of Medicine, Warsaw, Poland. urodent@wp.pl.
Piotr KrystSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Aneta AndrychowiczUrological Clinic, Warsaw, Poland.
Wojciech MalewskiSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo investigate the role of mpMRI and high PIRADS score as independent triggers in the qualification of patients with ISUP 1 prostate cancer on biopsy to radical prostatectomy.

methodsBetween January 2017 and June 2019, 494 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies were performed in our institution, including 203 patients (41.1%) with ISUP 1 cT1c-2c PCa on biopsy. Data regarding biopsy results, digital rectal examination, PSA, mpMRI and postoperative pathological report have been retrospectively analysed.

resultsIn 183 cases (90.1%) mpMRI has been performed at least 6 weeks after biopsy. Final pathology revealed ISUP Gleason Grade Group upgrade in 62.6% of cases. PIRADS 5, PIRADS 4 and PIRADS 3 were associated with Gleason Grade Group upgrade in 70.5%, 62.8%, 48.3% of patients on final pathology, respectively. Within PIRADS 5 group, the number of upgraded cases was statistically significant.

conclusionsPIRADS score correlates with an upgrade on final pathology and may justify shared decision of radical treatment in patients unwilling to repeated biopsies. However, the use of PIRADS 5 score as a sole indicator for prostatectomy may result in nonnegligible overtreatment rate.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingPatient SelectionProstatectomyBiopsyHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesActive surveillanceGleason upgradingMpMRI of prostatePIRADS scoreProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID34006281
PMCPMC8130114

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.