Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35357510›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2022

T2 mapping for the characterization of prostate lesions.

Tobias Hepp, Laura Kalmbach, Manuel Kolb, Petros Martirosian, Tom Hilbert, Wolfgang M Thaiss, Mike Notohamiprodjo, Jens Bedke, Konstantin Nikolaou, Arnulf Stenzl and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Optimal Selection of the Effective Echo Time (TEJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. DeepEMC-TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2023
    Review
  20. Imaging in translational cancer research.Cancer biology & medicine · 2022
    Review
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

12 authors.

Tobias HeppDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Laura KalmbachDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Manuel KolbDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. manuel.kolb@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Petros MartirosianDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Tom HilbertAdvanced Clinical Imaging Technology, Siemens Healthcare AG, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Wolfgang M ThaissDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Mike NotohamiprodjoDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Jens BedkeDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2778-3108
Konstantin NikolaouDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Arnulf StenzlDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Stephan KruckClinic of Urology, Siloah St. Trudpert Klinikum, Wilferdinger Str. 67, 75179, Pforzheim, Germany.
Sascha KaufmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePurpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative T2/ADC values in differentiating between PCa and lesions showing non-specific inflammatory infiltrates and atrophy, features of chronic prostatitis, as the most common histologically proven differential diagnosis.

methodsIn this retrospective, single-center cohort study, we analyzed 55 patients suspected of PCa, who underwent mpMRI (3T) including quantitative T2 maps before robot-assisted mpMRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. All prostate lesions were scored according to PI-RADS v2.1. Regions of interest (ROIs) were annotated in focal lesions and normal prostate tissue. Quantitative mpMRI values from T2 mapping and ADC were compared using two-tailed t tests. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) and cutoff were calculated to differentiate between PCa and chronic prostatitis.

resultsFocal lesions showed significantly lower ADC and T2 mapping values than normal prostate tissue (p < 0.001). PCa showed significantly lower ADC and T2 values than chronic prostatitis (p < 0.001). ROC analysis revealed areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.97) for quantitative ADC values and 0.84 (95% CI 0.73-0.96) for T2 mapping. A significant correlation between ADC and T2 values was observed (r = 0.70; p < 0.001).

conclusionT2 mapping showed high diagnostic accuracy for differentiating between PCa and chronic prostatitis, comparable to the performance of ADC values.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsProstatitisCohort StudiesDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstateRetrospective StudiesImage-guided biopsyMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerProstatitisT2 mapping

Identifiers

PMID35357510
PMCPMC9166840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.