Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35884558›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron-Emission Tomography Imaging in Primary Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yi Zhao, Benjamin S Simpson, Naomi Morka, Alex Freeman, Alex Kirkham, Daniel Kelly, Hayley C Whitaker, Mark Emberton, Joseph M Norris

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The Role of [Cancers · 2022
    Review
  12. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yi ZhaoSchool of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4563-4344
Benjamin S SimpsonUCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3685-6110
Naomi MorkaUCL Medical School, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Alex FreemanDepartment of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London NW1 2PG, UK.
Alex KirkhamDepartment of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London NW1 2PG, UK.
Daniel KellySchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1847-0655
Hayley C WhitakerUCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2695-0202
Mark EmbertonUCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Joseph M NorrisUCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2294-0303
University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBCardiff University · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S00680X/1Medical Research Council MR/S00680X/1 (Joseph M. Norris)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiparametric magnetic-resonance imaging (mpMRI) has proven utility in diagnosing primary prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic potential of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography (PSMA PET) has yet to be established. This study aims to systematically review the current literature comparing the diagnostic performance of mpMRI and PSMA PET imaging to diagnose primary prostate cancer. A systematic literature search was performed up to December 2021. Quality analyses were conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool. The reference standard was whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Statistical analysis involved the pooling of the reported diagnostic performances of each modality, and differences in per-patient and per-lesion analysis were compared using a Fisher’s exact test. Ten articles were included in the meta-analysis. At a per-patient level, the pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83−0.91) vs. 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90−0.96, p < 0.01); 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23−0.71) vs. 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23−0.84, p > 0.05); and 0.84 vs. 0.91, respectively. At a per-lesion level, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC value for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were lower, at 0.63 (95% CI: 0.52−0.74) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.62−0.92, p < 0.001); 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81−0.95) vs. 0.71 (95% CI: 0.47−0.90, p < 0.05); and 0.83 vs. 0.84, respectively. High heterogeneity was observed between studies. PSMA PET/CT may better confirm the presence of prostate cancer than mpMRI. However, both modalities appear comparable in determining the localisation of the lesions.

Indexed as

multiparametric magnetic-resonance imagingprimary diagnosisprostate cancerprostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomographysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35884558
PMCPMC9323375
OpenAlexW4285796340

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.