Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36230647›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Clinical Application of the New Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) Score Proposed to Evaluate the Local Recurrence of Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy.

Federica Ciccarese, Beniamino Corcioni, Lorenzo Bianchi, Antonio De Cinque, Alexandro Paccapelo, Giovanni Luca Galletta, Riccardo Schiavina, Eugenio Brunocilla, Rita Golfieri, Caterina Gaudiano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Federica CiccareseDepartment of Radiology, IRCSS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4827-6810
Beniamino CorcioniDepartment of Radiology, IRCSS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Lorenzo BianchiDivision of Urology, Department of Urology, IRCCS University Hospital of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7321-1536
Antonio De CinqueDepartment of Radiology, IRCSS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2677-7195
Alexandro PaccapeloDepartment of Radiology, IRCSS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Giovanni Luca GallettaDepartment of Radiology, IRCSS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Riccardo SchiavinaDivision of Urology, Department of Urology, IRCCS University Hospital of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Eugenio BrunocillaDivision of Urology, Department of Urology, IRCCS University Hospital of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Rita GolfieriDepartment of Radiology, IRCSS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8809-9989
Caterina GaudianoDepartment of Radiology, IRCSS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the new Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) score and its inter-observer variability. Secondly, we compared the detection rate of PI-RR and PET and analyzed the correlation between Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) levels and the PI-RR score. Methods: We included in the analysis 134 patients submitted to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for suspected local recurrence. The images were independently reviewed by two radiologists, assigning a value from 1 to 5 to the PI-RR score. Inter-observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy of the PI-RR score (compared to histopathological data, available for 19 patients) were calculated. The detection rate was compared to those of choline PET/CT (46 patients) and PSMA PET/CT (22 patients). The distribution of the PSA values in relation to the PI-RR scores was also analyzed. Results: The accuracy of the PI-RR score was 68.4%. The reporting agreement was excellent (K = 0.884, p < 0.001). The PI-RR showed a higher detection rate than choline PET/CT (69.6% versus 19.6%) and PSMA PET-CT (59.1% versus 22.7%). The analysis of the PSA distribution documented an increase in the PI-RR score as the PSA value increased. Conclusion: The excellent reproducibility of the PI-RR score supports its wide use in the clinical practice to standardize recurrence reporting. The detection rate of PI-RR was superior to that of PET, but was linked to the PSA level.

Indexed as

multiparametric magnetic resonance imagingprostate cancer recurrenceradical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID36230647
PMCPMC9562904

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.