Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35469056›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Single center analysis of an advisable control interval for follow-up of patients with PI-RADS category 3 in multiparametric MRI of the prostate.

M Boschheidgen, L Schimmöller, S Doerfler, R Al-Monajjed, J Morawitz, F Ziayee, D Mally, M Quentin, C Arsov, P Albers and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

M Boschheidgen *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
L Schimmöller *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. Lars.Schimmoeller@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
S DoerflerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
R Al-MonajjedDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
J MorawitzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
F ZiayeeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
D MallyDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
M QuentinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
C ArsovDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
P AlbersDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
G AntochDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
T UllrichDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate if follow-up mpMRI scans of patients in PI-RADS category 3 are safe enough to omit or delay prostate biopsy in the future and to determine an optimal control interval. This retrospective single center study includes consecutive PI-RADS category 3 patients with one or more follow-up mpMRI (T2WI, DWI, DCE) and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic TRUS-guided biopsy between 2012 and 2018. Primary study objective was the verification of a significant PI-RADS category upgrade in follow-up mpMRI in patients with subsequent PCA positive biopsy versus patients with negative biopsy. Further objectives were development of the PI-RADS category and clinical parameters between initial and follow-up mpMRI in the context of histopathologic results and time interval. Eighty-nine patients (median PSA 6.6 ng/ml; PSAD 0.13 ng/ml/ml) were finally included (follow-up period 31 ± 18 months). 19 cases had PCA (median PSA 7.8 ng/ml; PSAD 0.14 ng/ml/ml). 4 cases had csPCA (median PSA 5.4 ng/ml; PSAD 0.13 ng/ml/ml) for which there was a significant PI-RADS upgrade after 12-24 months (mean 3.75; p = 0.01) compared to patients without PCA (mean 2.74). Without PCA the mean PI-RADS category decreased after 25-36 months (mean 2.74; p = 0.02). Clinical parameters did not change significantly except a PSAD increase for PCA patients after 24 months. Patients within PI-RADS category 3 may not need prompt biopsy since those with PCA reliably demonstrate a PI-RADS category upgrade in follow-up mpMRI after 12-24 months. PI-RADS 3 patients with negative biopsy do not benefit from follow-up mpMRI earlier than 24 months.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsFollow-Up StudiesHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstateProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID35469056
PMCPMC9038748
OpenAlexW4224844642

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.