ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022
Combining and analyzing novel multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging metrics for predicting Gleason score.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Autonomous Prostate Cancer Clinical Significance Determination from Spectral/Statistics Features in Bi-Parametric MRI.Cancers · 2026Article
- Comparing and Combining Artificial Intelligence and Spectral/Statistical Approaches for Elevating Prostate Cancer Assessment in a Biparametric MRI: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Optimizing prostate biopsy decision-making for patients with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥3 lesions: novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based nomograms.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Challenges in magnetic resonance imaging-based detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in young patients: two alternative approaches.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Relationship between Eccentricity and Volume Determined by Spectral Algorithms Applied to Spatially Registered Bi-Parametric MRI and Prostate Tumor Aggressiveness: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram based on biparametric MRI PI-RADS v2.1 and clinical parameters to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Application of Spectral Algorithm Applied to Spatially Registered Bi-Parametric MRI to Predict Prostate Tumor Aggressiveness: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A scoring diagnostic system based on biparametric ultrasound features for prostate cancer risk assessment.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Pilot study for generating and assessing nomograms and decision curves analysis to predict clinically significant prostate cancer using only spatially registered multi-parametric MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Assessing and testing anomaly detection for finding prostate cancer in spatially registered multi-parametric MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Radiologists currently subjectively examine multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) to determine prostate tumor aggressiveness using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scoring system (PI-RADS). Recent studies showed that modified signal to clutter ratio (SCR), tumor volume, and eccentricity (elongation or roundness) of prostate tumors correlated with Gleason score (GS). No previous studies have combined the prostate tumor's shape, SCR, tumor volume, in order to predict potential tumor aggressiveness and GS. Methods: MP-MRI (T1, T2, diffusion, dynamic contrast-enhanced images) were obtained, resized, translated, and stitched to form spatially registered multi-parametric cubes. Multi-parametric signatures that characterize prostate tumors were inserted into a target detection algorithm [adaptive cosine estimator (ACE)]. Pixel-based blobbing, and labeling were applied to the threshold ACE images. Eccentricity calculation used moments of inertia from the blobs. Tumor volume was computed by counting pixels within multi parametric MRI blobs and tumor outlines based on pathologist assessment of whole mount histology. Pathology assessment of GS was performed on whole mount prostatectomy. The covariance matrix and mean of normal tissue background was computed from normal prostate. Using signatures and normal tissue statistics, the z-score, noise corrected SCR [principal component (PC), modified regularization] from each patient was computed. Eccentricity, tumor volume, and SCR were fitted to GS. Analysis of variance assesses the relationship among the variables. Results: A multivariate analysis generated correlation coefficient (0.60 to 0.784) and P value (0.00741 to <0.0001) from fitting two sets of independent variates, namely, tumor eccentricity (the eccentricity for the largest blob, weighted average for the eccentricity) and SCR (removing 3 PCs, removing 4 PCs, modified regularization, and z-score) to GS. The eccentricity t-statistic exceeded the SCR t-statistic. The three-variable fit to GS using tumor volume (histology, MRI) yielded correlation coefficients ranging from 0.724 to 0.819 (P value <<0.05). Tumor volumes generated from histology yielded higher correlation coefficients than MRI volumes. Adding volume to eccentricity and SCR adds little improvement for fitting GS due to higher correlation coefficients among independent variables and little additional, independent information. Conclusions: Combining prostate tumors eccentricity with SCR relatively highly correlates with GS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.