Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36082151›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2022

MRI Extraprostatic Extension Grade: Accuracy and Clinical Incremental Value in the Assessment of Extraprostatic Cancer.

Jun-Yi Xiang, Xiao-Shan Huang, Jian-Xia Xu, Ren-Hua Huang, Xiao-Zhong Zheng, Li-Ming Xue, Yu-Long Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jun-Yi XiangDepartment of Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215004, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1269-8413
Xiao-Shan HuangDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310005, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1746-8967
Jian-Xia XuDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310005, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1795-2468
Ren-Hua HuangDepartment of Radiation, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200000, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5581-6985
Xiao-Zhong ZhengDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310005, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9558-6264
Li-Ming XueDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310005, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5739-5363
Yu-Long LiuDepartment of Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215004, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2660-8076
Zhejiang Chinese Medical University · CNRenji Hospital · CNSoochow University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The purpose was to compare the accuracy of extraprostatic extension (EPE) grade on MRI predicting EPE with Partin tables, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram (MSKCCn), and combined models and to analyze the clinical incremental value of EPE grade. Materials and Methods: 105 prostate cancer patients confirmed by pathology after radical prostatectomy in our hospital from 2017 to 2021 were selected. The clinical stage, PSA, Gleason score, number of positive biopsy cores, and percentage of positive biopsy cores were recorded. Evaluate EPE grade according to EPE grade criteria, and calculate the probability of predicting EPE with Partin tables and MSKCCn. EPE grade is combined with Partin tables and MSKCCn to construct EPE grade+Partin tables and EPE grade+MSKCCn models. Calculate the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of EPE grade, Partin tables, MSKCCn, EPE grade+Partin tables, and EPE grade+MSKCCn and compare their diagnostic efficacy. The clinical decision curve was used to analyze the clinical net income of each prediction scheme. Results: The AUC of EPE grade was 0.79, Partin tables was 0.50, MSKCCn was 0.78, the EPE grade+Partin table model was 0.79, and the EPE grade+MSKCCn model was 0.83. After EPE grade was combined with Partin tables and MSKCCn, the diagnostic efficiency of clinical model was significantly improved ( Conclusion: The accuracy of EPE classification in predicting prostate cancer EPE is high, and combined with the clinical model, it can significantly improve the diagnostic efficiency of the clinical model and increase the clinical benefit.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleNeoplasm StagingProstateProstatectomy

Identifiers

PMID36082151
PMCPMC9448588
OpenAlexW4293694116

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.