ArticleScientific reports2022
Quantification of prostate tumour diameter and volume from MR images using 3D ellipsoid model and its impact on PI-RADS v2.1 assessment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate MRI: current applications, ongoing debates, and synergies with advanced technologies-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- The evolving PI-RADS paradigm.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Review
- Standardizing Prostate MRI Reporting in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Framework.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- Rectal-RadioSAM: Large model-assisted multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging pipeline for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer without human intervention.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: A review of current technology.World journal of radiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maximum diameter and volume of the tumour provide important clinical information and are decision-making parameters for patients suspected with prostate cancer (PCa). The objectives of this study were to develop an automated method for 3D tumour measurement and compare it with the radiologist's manual assessment, as well as to investigate the impact of 3D tumour measurement on Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version-2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) scoring of prostate cancer. Tumour maximum diameter and volume were calculated using automated ellipsoid-fit method. For all PI-RADS scores, mean ± standard deviation range of tumour maximum diameter and volume measured using ellipsoid-fit method were 1.36 ± 0.28 to 1.97 ± 0.67 cm and 0.49 ± 0.31 to 1.05 ± 0.78 cc and manual assessment were in range of 0.73 ± 0.12 to 1.14 ± 0.25 cm and 0.36 ± 0.21 to 0.93 ± 0.39 cc, respectively. Ellipsoid-fit method showed significantly (p < 0.05) higher values for maximum diameter and volume than manual assessment. 3D measurement of tumour using ellipsoid-fit method was found to have higher maximum diameter and volume values (in 40-61% patients) compared to conventional assessment by radiologist, which may have an impact on PI-RADS v2.1 scoring system.
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.