ArticleCurrent urology2022
An independent practice validation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 scoring system and the introduction of PDP (prostate-specific antigen density × PI-RADSv2) score to assist with further risk assessment.
Article in Current urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To provide concise information to clinicians on how to better interpret multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer risk stratification. Materials and methods: We analyzed 2 separate cohorts. For patients receiving a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) score of 1 or 2, we reviewed the charts of 226 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate ordered from 2015 to 2017 to determine who developed clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) by August 27, 2020. For patients receiving PI-RADSv2 a score of 3, 4, or 5, we reviewed the results of 733 fusion biopsies on solitary lesions. Statistical analysis was used to further determine risk factors for csPCa. Results: Ten percent of men with PI-RADSv2 a score of 1 eventually developed csPCa. Seven percent with a score of 2 were eventually diagnosed with csPCa. Only 1 of 226 with a score of 1 or 2 developed metastasis. For PI-RADSv2 scores of 3, 4, and 5, csPCa was detected in 16%, 45%, and 67% of fusion biopsies. Peripheral zone (PZ) PI-RADSv2 score of 4 or 5 and prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D) were significant predictors of csPCa on multivariable analysis. Using a PSA-D × PI-RADSv2 score of ≤0.39, we identified 38% of men with a PI-RADSv2 score of 3 in the PZ or 3, 4, or 5 in the transition zone who could have avoided a benign biopsy. Conclusions: The vast majority of patients with PI-RADSv2 scores 1 and 2 can be safely monitored with close surveillance. Lesions with PI-RADSv2 scores of 4 and 5 in the PZ should be biopsied. Peripheral zone lesions with a PI-RADSv2 score of 3 and transition zone lesions with 3, 4, or 5 can be risk-stratified using the PSA-D × PI-RADSv2 score to determine who may safely avoid a biopsy and who should proceed to fusion biopsy.
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.