Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35240084›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2022

Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study.

Alistair D R Grey, Rebecca Scott, Bina Shah, Peter Acher, Sidath Liyanage, Menelaos Pavlou, Rumana Omar, Frank Chinegwundoh, Prasad Patki, Taimur T Shah and 21 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05443412 (Artificial Intelligence), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05443412 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Risk-based Prostate Cancer Detection: A Synergy of Novel Biomarkers, Advanced Imaging, and Robotic-assisted Diagnosis

TypeobservationalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2023 to 2026Enrolled510ConditionsProstate CancerArmsDiagnostic test for prostate cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Biopsy strategies in the era of mpMRI: a comprehensive review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

31 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Alistair D R GreyDivision of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Rebecca ScottDivision of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Bina ShahSurgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Peter AcherDepartment of Urology, Southend University Hospital, Southend, UK.
Sidath LiyanageDepartment of Radiology, Southend University Hospital, Southend, UK.
Menelaos PavlouFaculty of Medical Sciences, and Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Rumana OmarFaculty of Medical Sciences, and Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Frank ChinegwundohDepartment of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Prasad PatkiDepartment of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Taimur T ShahImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Sami HamidDepartment of Urology, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Maneesh GheiDepartment of Urology, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Kayleigh GilbertDepartment of Urology, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Diane CampbellDepartment of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Chris Brew-GravesSurgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Nimalan ArumainayagamDepartment of Urology, Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK.
Alex ChapmanDepartment of Radiology, Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK.
Laura McLeavyImperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Angeliki KaratziouImperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Zayneb AlsaadiImperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Tom CollinsDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alex FreemanDepartment of Histopathology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
David Eldred-EvansImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Mariana Bertoncelli-TanakaImperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Henry TamDepartment of Radiology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Navin RamachandranDepartment of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sanjeev MadaanDepartment of Urology, Darent Valley Hospital, Dartford, UK.
Mathias WinklerImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Manit AryaDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Mark EmbertonDivision of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Hashim U AhmedImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: hashim.ahmed@imperial.ac.uk.
University College London · GBCharing Cross Hospital · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBWhittington Hospital · GBAshford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GBSouthend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBDarent Valley Hospital · GBProstate Cancer Research · GBRoyal London Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by targeted biopsy is recommended for patients at risk of prostate cancer. However, multiparametric ultrasound is more readily available than multiparametric MRI. Data from paired-cohort validation studies and randomised, controlled trials support the use of multiparametric MRI, whereas the evidence for individual ultrasound methods and multiparametric ultrasound is only derived from case series. We aimed to establish the overall agreement between multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer.

methodsWe conducted a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study in seven hospitals in the UK. Patients at risk of prostate cancer, aged 18 years or older, with an elevated prostate-specific antigen concentration or abnormal findings on digital rectal examination underwent both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI. Multiparametric ultrasound consisted of B-mode, colour Doppler, real-time elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Multiparametric MRI included high-resolution T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging (dedicated high B 1400 s/mm

findingsBetween March 15, 2016, and Nov 7, 2019, 370 eligible patients were enrolled; 306 patients completed both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI and 257 underwent a prostate biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound was positive in 272 (89% [95% CI 85-92]) of 306 patients and multiparametric MRI was positive in 238 patients (78% [73-82]; difference 11·1% [95% CI 5·1-17·1]). Positive test agreement was 73·2% (95% CI 67·9-78·1; κ=0·06 [95% CI -0·56 to 0·17]). Any cancer was detected in 133 (52% [95% CI 45·5-58]) of 257 patients, with 83 (32% [26-38]) of 257 being clinically significant by PROMIS definition 1. Each test alone would result in multiparametric ultrasound detecting PROMIS definition 1 cancer in 66 (26% [95% CI 21-32]) of 257 patients who had biopsies and multiparametric MRI detecting it in 77 (30% [24-36]; difference -4·3% [95% CI -8·3% to -0·3]). Combining both tests detected 83 (32% [95% CI 27-38]) of 257 clinically significant cancers as per PROMIS definition 1; of these 83 cancers, six (7% [95% CI 3-15]) were detected exclusively with multiparametric ultrasound, and 17 (20% [12-31]) were exclusively detected by multiparametric MRI (agreement 91·1% [95% CI 86·9-94·2]; κ=0·78 [95% CI 0·69-0·86]). No serious adverse events were related to trial activity.

interpretationMultiparametric ultrasound detected 4·3% fewer clinically significant prostate cancers than multiparametric MRI, but it would lead to 11·1% more patients being referred for a biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound could be an alternative to multiparametric MRI as a first test for patients at risk of prostate cancer, particularly if multiparametric MRI cannot be carried out. Both imaging tests missed clinically significant cancers detected by the other, so the use of both would increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancers compared with using each test alone.

fundingThe Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Prostate Cancer UK, and UCLH Charity and Barts Charity.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeoplasm GradingProspective StudiesProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID35240084
OpenAlexW4214769572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.