ArticleUrologic oncology2022
Cancer-specific outcomes for prostate cancer patients who had prebiopsy prostate MRI.
Article in Urologic oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe characterized population-level cancer-specific outcomes for prostate cancer patients based on use of prebiopsy prostate MRI.
methodsUsing SEER-Medicare claims, we identified men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2010-2015 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 20 ng/mL. Primary exposure was prebiopsy prostate MRI prior to diagnosis (i.e., CPT 72197 linked to urology-specific diagnosis). Outcomes included diagnosis of Grade Group 2+ disease on biopsy and proportion treated with prostatectomy. We assessed those treated with prostatectomy and evaluated association with prebiopsy MRI and grade concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy. We estimated adjusted odds ratios with multivariable regression after accounting for other factors (e.g., age, year, PSA, race/ethnicity).
resultsWe identified 48,574 patients, where 915 (1.9%) underwent prebiopsy MRI. Patients with prebiopsy MRI had more GG>2 cancer on biopsy (70.0% MRI vs. 62.8% no MRI) but lost significance after adjustment (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96-1.30). Patients with prebiopsy MRI were more likely to have prostatectomy (39.2% vs. 28.5%, adjusted OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.31-1.76). Downgrading from biopsy GG 3-5 to final GG 1-2 was less common after prebiopsy MRI (21.3% vs. 28.2% no MRI, P = 0.05) but not significant after adjustment (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51 - 1.08). Among 14,027 men with prostatectomy, accurate risk classification was not more likely with a prebiopsy MRI (48.0% no MRI vs. 49.6% prebiopsy MRI, P = 0.56).
conclusionDuring initial adoption, men with prebiopsy prostate MRI had marginally increased detection of significant cancer on biopsy and were more likely to be treated with prostatectomy. For those treated with prostatectomy, use of prebiopsy MRI was not associated with a greater likelihood of accurate risk classification or grade concordance between biopsy and final pathology results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.