Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36614957›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Predictors of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PIRADS Categories 3-5 Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate.

Stanisław Szempliński, Hubert Kamecki, Małgorzata Dębowska, Bartłomiej Zagożdżon, Mateusz Mokrzyś, Marek Zawadzki, Roman Sosnowski, Andrzej Tokarczyk, Sławomir Poletajew, Piotr Kryst and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Stanisław SzemplińskiSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland.
Hubert KameckiSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland.
Małgorzata DębowskaNałęcz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Polish Academy of Sciences, 02-109 Warsaw, Poland.
Bartłomiej ZagożdżonSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland.
Mateusz MokrzyśDepartment of Urology, St. Anna Hospital, 05-500 Piaseczno, Poland.
Marek ZawadzkiDepartment of Urology, St. Anna Hospital, 05-500 Piaseczno, Poland.
Roman SosnowskiDepartment of Urogenital Cancer, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, 02-781 Warsaw, Poland.
Andrzej TokarczykSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland.
Sławomir PoletajewSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7664-9816
Piotr KrystSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2551-0296
Łukasz NykSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland.
Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine · PLSt. Anna Hospital · DEThe Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology · PLCentrum Medyczne iMed24 · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate biopsy is recommended in cases of positive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), defined as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) category ≥ 3. However, most men with positive MRIs will not be diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). Our goal was to evaluate pre-biopsy characteristics that influence the probability of a csPC diagnosis in these patients. We retrospectively analyzed 740 consecutive men with a positive MRI and no prior PC diagnosis who underwent MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsies of the prostate in three centers. csPC detection rates (CDRs) for each PIRADS category were calculated. Patient, disease, and lesion characteristics were studied for interdependencies with the csPC diagnosis. The CDR in patients with PIRADS categories 3, 4, and 5 was 10.5%, 30.7%, and 54.6%, respectively. On both uni- and multivariable regression models, older age, being biopsy-naïve, prostate specific antigen ≥ 10 ng/mL, smaller prostate volume, PIRADS > 3, a larger maximum lesion size, a lesion in the peripheral zone, and a positive digital rectal examination were associated with csPC. In this large, multicenter study, we provide new data regarding CDRs in particular PIRADS categories. In addition, we present several strong predictors that further alter the risk of csPC in MRI-positive patients. Our results could help in refining individual risk assessment, especially in PIRADS 3 patients, in whom the risk of csPC is substantially low.

Indexed as

detection ratemultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingpositive predictive valueprostate cancerprostate imaging reporting and data system version 2targeted biopsy

Identifiers

PMID36614957
PMCPMC9820960
OpenAlexW4313260734

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.