Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34065851›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2021

Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS v2, Proposed Adjusted PI-RADS v2 and Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Preliminary Study.

Guan-Hui Cai, Qi-Hua Yang, Wen-Bo Chen, Qing-Yu Liu, Yu-Rong Zeng, Yu-Jing Zeng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Diagnostic value of integratedProstate international · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Guan-Hui CaiRadiology Department, Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital, Huizhou 516001, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0408-1701
Qi-Hua YangRadiology Department, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Wen-Bo ChenRadiology Department, Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital, Huizhou 516001, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8812-9973
Qing-Yu LiuThe Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 628 Zhenyuan Road, Xinhu Street, Guangming New District, Shenzhen 518107, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7171-6346
Yu-Rong ZengRadiology Department, Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital, Huizhou 516001, China.
Yu-Jing ZengRadiology Department, Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital, Huizhou 516001, China.
Huizhou Central People's Hospital · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2, proposed adjustments to PI-RADS v2 (PA PI-RADS v2) and biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer detection.

methodsA retrospective cohort of 224 patients with suspected prostate cancer was included from January 2016 to November 2018. All the patients underwent a multi-parametric MR scan before biopsy. Two radiologists independently evaluated the MR examinations using PI-RADS v2, PA PI-RADS v2, and a biparametric MRI protocol, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the three different protocols were drawn.

resultsIn total, 90 out of 224 cases (40.18%) were pathologically diagnosed as prostate cancer. The area under the ROC curves (AUC) for diagnosing prostate cancers by biparametric MRI, PI-RADS v2, and PA PI-RADS v2 were 0.938, 0.935, and 0.934, respectively. For cancers in the peripheral zone (PZ), the diagnostic sensitivity was 97.1% for PI-RADS v2/PA PI-RADS v2 and 96.2% for biparametric MRI. Moreover, the specificity was 84.0% for biparametric MRI and 58.0% for PI-RADS v2/PA PI-RADS v2. For cancers in the transition zone (TZ), the diagnostic sensitivity was 93.4% for PA PI-RADS v2 and 88.2% for biparametric MRI/PI-RADS v2. Furthermore, the specificity was 95.4% for biparametric MRI/PI-RADS v2 and 78.0% for PA PI-RADS v2.

conclusionsThe overall diagnostic performance of the three protocols showed minimal differences. For lesions assessed as being category 3 using the biparametric MRI protocol, PI-RADS v2, or PA PI-RADS v2, it was thought prostate cancer detection could be improved. Attention should be paid to false positive results when PI-RADS v2 or PA PI-RADS v2 are used.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityGleason scoremultiparametric MRIPI-RADSprostate cancerprostate neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID34065851
PMCPMC8161832
OpenAlexW3160202891

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.