ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022
Longitudinal evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient values as a predictor of Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance reclassification.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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.
- The role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameters in distinguishing between Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) non-reclassification and reclassification groups during active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer.
methodsWe included 55 patients who fulfilled the PRIAS criteria and underwent ≥ 2 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging with an interval of ≤ 3 years between baseline and second MRI. A mono-exponential fitting model was used to automatically create ADC maps with minimum b-values of 0 and maximum of 2000 s/mm
resultsThe PRIAS reclassification group had significantly lower 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ADC values at second MRI compared to the non-reclassification group. The non-reclassification group had significantly lower changes in ADC values in these percentiles compared to the reclassification group.
conclusionThe ADC parameters at second MRI and the changes from baseline to second MRI may be effective distinguishing factors between PRIAS non-reclassification and reclassification groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34882269What 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.