Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35474704›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2021

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting.

Jia Ying Isaac Tay, Ken Chow, Dominic J Gavin, Evie Mertens, Nicholas Howard, Benjamin Thomas, Philip Dundee, Justin Peters, Paul Simkin, Sevastjan Kranz and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. BJUI compass · 2021
    Article
  7. 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

15 authors.

Jia Ying Isaac TayDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-4356
Ken ChowDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5904-2684
Dominic J GavinDepartment of Surgery The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3276-6206
Evie MertensDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.
Nicholas HowardDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.
Benjamin ThomasDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1330-122X
Philip DundeeDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.
Justin PetersDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.
Paul SimkinDepartment of Radiology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.
Sevastjan KranzDepartment of Pathology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.
Moira FinlayDepartment of Pathology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.
Stefan HeinzeDepartment of Radiology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.
Brian KellyDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9554-3953
Anthony CostelloDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.
Niall CorcoranDepartment of Urology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting. Patients and methods: All consecutive men who underwent a prostate biopsy (transperineal or transrectal) at Royal Melbourne Hospital between July 2017 to June 2019 were included, totalling 332 patients. Data were retrospectively collected from patient records. For each individual patient, the risk of prostate cancer diagnosis at biopsy based on clinical findings was determined using the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator, with and without incorporation of MRI findings. Results: MRI has good diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer. A PI-RADS 2 or lower finding has a negative predictive value of 96% for clinically significant cancer, and a PI-RADS 3, 4 or 5 MRI scan has a sensitivity of 93%. However, MRI has a false negative rate of 6.5% overall for clinically significant prostate cancers. Pre- biopsy MRI may reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, as up to 50.0% of negative or ISUP1 biopsies have MRI PI-RADS 2 or lower. Incorporation of MRI findings into the ERSPC calculator improved predictive performance for all prostate cancer diagnoses (AUC 0.77 vs 0.71, Conclusion: MRI has good sensitivity and negative predictive value for clinically significant prostate cancers. It is useful as a pre-biopsy tool and can be used to significantly reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies. However, MRI does not significantly improve risk predictions for clinically significant cancers when incorporated into the ERSPC risk calculator.

Indexed as

active surveillancebiopsyERSPC risk calculatormultiparametric magenetic resonance imagingprostate Cancer

Identifiers

PMID35474704
PMCPMC8988779

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.