Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34342693›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Evaluation of a fractional-order calculus diffusion model and bi-parametric VI-RADS for staging and grading bladder urothelial carcinoma.

Cui Feng, Yanchun Wang, Guangyu Dan, Zheng Zhong, M Muge Karaman, Zhen Li, Daoyu Hu, Xiaohong Joe Zhou

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cui FengDepartment of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Qiaokou District, Wuhan, 430030, China.
Yanchun WangDepartment of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Qiaokou District, Wuhan, 430030, China.
Guangyu DanCenter for MR Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, MC-707, Suite 1A, 1801 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Zheng ZhongCenter for MR Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, MC-707, Suite 1A, 1801 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
M Muge KaramanCenter for MR Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, MC-707, Suite 1A, 1801 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Zhen LiDepartment of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Qiaokou District, Wuhan, 430030, China.
Daoyu HuDepartment of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Qiaokou District, Wuhan, 430030, China. daoyuhu@hust.edu.cn.
Xiaohong Joe ZhouCenter for MR Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, MC-707, Suite 1A, 1801 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. xjzhou@uic.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0793-4925
University of Illinois Chicago · USTongji Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for distinguishing non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) from muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and low- from high-grade bladder urothelial carcinoma using a fractional-order calculus (FROC) model as well as a combination of FROC DWI and bi-parametric Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS).

methodsFifty-eight participants with bladder urothelial carcinoma were included in this IRB-approved prospective study. Diffusion-weighted images, acquired with 16 b-values (0-3600 s/mm

resultsD and μ were significantly lower in the MIBC group than in the NMIBC group (p = 0.001 for each), and D, β, and μ all exhibited significantly lower values in the high- than in the low-grade tumors (p ≤ 0.011). The combination of D, β, and μ produced the highest specificity (85%), accuracy (78%), and the area under the ROC curve (AUC, 0.782) for distinguishing NMIBC and MIBC, and the best sensitivity (89%), specificity (86%), accuracy (88%), and AUC (0.892) for tumor grading, all of which outperformed the ADC. The combination of FROC parameters with bi-parametric VI-RADS improved the AUC from 0.859 to 0.931.

conclusionsHigh b-value DWI with a FROC model is useful in distinguishing NMIBC from MIBC and grading bladder tumors. KEY POINTS: • Diffusion parameters derived from a FROC diffusion model may differentiate NMIBC from MIBC and low- from high-grade bladder urothelial carcinomas. • Under the condition of a moderate sample size, higher AUCs were achieved by the FROC parameters D (0.842) and μ (0.857) than ADC (0.804) for bladder tumor grading with p ≤ 0.046. • The combination of the three diffusion parameters from the FROC model can improve the specificity over ADC (85% versus 67%, p = 0.031) for distinguishing NMIBC and MIBC and enhance the performance of bi-parametric VI-RADS.

Indexed as

CalculiCarcinoma, Transitional CellUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansNeoplasm GradingProspective StudiesROC CurveUrinary BladderDiffusion magnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm gradingUrinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34342693
OpenAlexW3192592495

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.