Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34687137›Full record

ArticleBJU international2022

Repeat MRI during active surveillance: natural history of prostatic lesions and upgrading rates.

Stefano Luzzago, Mattia Luca Piccinelli, Francesco A Mistretta, Roberto Bianchi, Gabriele Cozzi, Ettore Di Trapani, Antonio Cioffi, Michele Catellani, Matteo Fontana, Letizia Maria Ippolita Jannello and 11 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stefano LuzzagoDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9373-1413
Mattia Luca PiccinelliDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Francesco A MistrettaDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Roberto BianchiDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Gabriele CozziDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Ettore Di TrapaniDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Antonio CioffiDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Michele CatellaniDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Matteo FontanaDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Letizia Maria Ippolita JannelloDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Francesco Maria Gerardo BotticelliDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia MarvasoDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5339-8038
Sarah AlessiDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Paola PricoloDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Matteo FerroDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9250-7858
Deliu-Victor MateiDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Barbara A Jereczek-FossaDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Nicola FuscoDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe PetraliaDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Ottavio de CobelliDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Gennaro MusiDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
University of Milan · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess upgrading rates in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) after serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 558 patients. Five different criteria for mpMRI progression were used: 1) a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score increase; 2) a lesion size increase; 3) an extraprostatic extension score increase; 4) overall mpMRI progression; and 5) the number of criteria met for mpMRI progression (0 vs 1 vs 2-3). In addition, two definitions of PCa upgrading were evaluated: 1) International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (ISUP GG) ≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 and 2) ISUP GG ≥ 3. Estimated annual percent changes methodology was used to show the temporal trends of mpMRI progression criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI progression criteria were also analysed. Multivariable logistic regression models tested PCa upgrading rates.

resultsLower rates over time for all mpMRI progression criteria were observed. The NPV of serial mpMRI scans ranged from 90.5% to 93.5% (ISUP GG≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 PCa upgrading) and from 98% to 99% (ISUP GG≥3 PCa upgrading), depending on the criteria used for mpMRI progression. A prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) threshold of 0.15 ng/mL/mL was used to substratify those patients who would be able to skip a prostate biopsy. In multivariable logistic regression models assessing PCa upgrading rates, all five mpMRI progression criteria achieved independent predictor status.

conclusionDuring AS, approximately 27% of patients experience mpMRI progression at first repeat MRI. However, the rates of mpMRI progression decrease over time at subsequent mpMRI scans. Patients with stable mpMRI findings and with PSAD < 0.15 ng/mL/mL could safely skip surveillance biopsies. Conversely, patients who experience mpMRI progression should undergo a prostate biopsy.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeoplasm GradingRetrospective StudiesWatchful Waitingactive surveillanceEPE scoremultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging#PCSMPI-RADS scoreprostate biopsy#ProstateCancer#uroonc

Identifiers

PMID34687137
OpenAlexW3205754916

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.