Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34015891›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2022

Prediction of Pathologic Findings with MRI-Based Clinical Staging Using the Bayesian Network Modeling in Prostate Cancer: A Radiation Oncologist Perspective.

Chan Woo Wee, Bum-Sup Jang, Jin Ho Kim, Chang Wook Jeong, Cheol Kwak, Hyun Hoe Kim, Ja Hyeon Ku, Seung Hyup Kim, Jeong Yeon Cho, Sang Youn Kim

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 53% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chan Woo WeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Bum-Sup JangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Jin Ho KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Chang Wook JeongDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Cheol KwakDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hyun Hoe KimDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ja Hyeon KuDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seung Hyup KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong Yeon ChoDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sang Youn KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seoul National University · KRSeoul National University Bundang Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to develop a model for predicting pathologic extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) while integrating magnetic resonance imaging-based T-staging (cTMRI, cT1c-cT3b). MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 1,915 who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2006-2016 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis as well as Bayesian network (BN) modeling based on possible confounding factors. The BN model was internally validated using 5-fold validation.

resultsAccording to the multivariate logistic regression analysis, initial prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) (β=0.050, p < 0.001), percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPC) (β=0.033, p < 0.001), both lobe involvement on biopsy (β=0.359, p=0.009), Gleason score (β=0.358, p < 0.001), and cTMRI (β=0.259, p < 0.001) were significant factors for ECE. For SVI, iPSA (β=0.037, p < 0.001), PPC (β=0.024, p < 0.001), Gleason score (β=0.753, p < 0.001), and cTMRI (β=0.507, p < 0.001) showed statistical significance. BN models to predict ECE and SVI were also successfully established. The overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)/accuracy of the BN models were 0.76/73.0% and 0.88/89.6% for ECE and SVI, respectively. According to internal comparison between the BN model and Roach formula, BN model had improved AUC values for predicting ECE (0.76 vs. 0.74, p=0.060) and SVI (0.88 vs. 0.84, p < 0.001).

conclusionTwo models to predict pathologic ECE and SVI integrating cTMRI were established and installed on a separate website for public access to guide radiation oncologists.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBayes TheoremHumansLogistic ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingProstatic NeoplasmsRadiation OncologyRetrospective StudiesROC CurveBayesian networkExtracapsular extensionMagnetic resonance imagingProstate neoplasmsRadiotherapySeminal vesicle

Identifiers

PMID34015891
PMCPMC8756129
OpenAlexW3163180058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.