Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36147926›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Prospective evaluation of the role of imaging techniques and TMPRSS2:ERG mutation for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Massimo Lazzeri, Vittorio Fasulo, Giovanni Lughezzani, Alessio Benetti, Giulia Soldà, Rosanna Asselta, Ilaria De Simone, Marco Paciotti, Pier Paolo Avolio, Roberto Contieri and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Comparison of discovery rates and prognostic utility of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Massimo LazzeriDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Vittorio FasuloDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni LughezzaniDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Alessio BenettiDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Giulia SoldàDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Rosanna AsseltaDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Ilaria De SimoneDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Marco PaciottiDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Pier Paolo AvolioDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Roberto ContieriDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Cesare SaittaDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Alberto SaitaDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Rodolfo HurleDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Giorgio GuazzoniDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Nicolò Maria BuffiDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Paolo CasaleDepartment of Urology, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITHumanitas University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To test the hypothesis of a relationship between a specific genetic lesion (T2:ERG) and imaging scores, such as PI-RADS and PRI-MUS, and to test the effectiveness of these parameters for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Materials and methods: This is a prospective study of men with suspected PCa enrolled between 2016 and 2019 at a high-volume tertiary hospital. Patients underwent systematic US-guided biopsy, plus targeted biopsy if they were presenting with >=1 suspicious lesion (PI-RADS>2) at mpMRI or PR-IMUS >2 at micro-ultrasound assessment. For each patient, one core from the highest PI-RADS or PRI-MUS lesion was collected for T2:ERG analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models (LRMs) were fitted for csPCa with a clinical model (age, total PSA, previous biopsy, family history for PCa), a clinical plus PI-RADS, clinical plus T2:ERG, clinical plus PI-RADS plus T2:ERG, and T2:ERG plus PI-RADS alone. Results: The cohort consists of 158 patients: 83.5% and 66.2% had respectively a diagnosis of PCa and csPCa after biopsy. A T2:ERG fusion was found in 37 men and 97.3% of these patients harbored PCa, while 81.1% were diagnosed with csPCa. SE of T2:ERG assay for csPCa was 28.8%, SP 87.0%, NPV 38.8%, and PPV 81.1%. Of 105 patients who performed mpMRI 93.% had PIRADS ≥3. SE of mpMRI for csPCa was 98.5%, SP was 12.8%, NPV was 83.3%, and PPV was 65.7%. Among 67 patients who were subjected to micro-US, 90% had a PRI-MUS ≥3. SE of micro-US for csPCa was 89.1%, SP was 9.52%, NPV was 28.6%, and PPV was 68.3%. At univariable LRM T2:ERG was confirmed as independent of mpMRI and micro-US result (OR 1.49, p=0.133 and OR 1.82, p=0.592, respectively). At multivariable LRM the clinical model alone had an AUC for csPCa of 0.74 while the clinical model including PI-RADS and T2:ERG achieved an AUC of 0.83. Conclusions: T2:ERG translocation and imaging results are independent of each other, but both are related csPCa. To evaluate the best diagnostic work-up for PCa and csPCa detection, all available tools (T2:ERG detection and imaging techniques) should be employed together as they appear to have a complementary role.

Indexed as

diagnosisgene fusionmicroUSmpMRIprostate cancerTMPRSS2:ERGtranslocation

Identifiers

PMID36147926
PMCPMC9487838
OpenAlexW4294786515

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.