ArticleWorld journal of urology2023
Impact of prostate MRI central review over the diagnostic performance of MRI-targeted biopsy: should we routinely ask for an expert second opinion?
Article in World journal of urology, 2023. 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.
- Impact of prostate mpMRI quality on diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer: a prospective study.BJU international · 2026Article
- PHI for adverse pathology and PHI density for upgrading: two complementary predictors in localized prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- The added value of artificial intelligence using Quantib Prostate for the detection of prostate cancer at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.La Radiologia medica · 2025Observational
- PI-QUAL version 2: the urologist's perspective.European radiology · 2024Article
- Prostate Cancers Invisible on Multiparametric MRI: Pathologic Features in Correlation with Whole-Mount Prostatectomy.Cancers · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is substantial variability in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) protocols and inter-readers' agreement. We tested the effect of a central mpMRI review on the detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in a tertiary referral center.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 364 consecutive men with a positive externally performed mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 3) who underwent a targeted biopsy (TBx) plus a systematic biopsy at a single tertiary referral center (2018-2020). Of those mpMRIs, 32% (n = 116) were centrally reviewed. We compared the detection of csPCa between the non-central-reviewed vs reviewed group. Multivariable logistic regression models (MVA) tested the relationship between mpMRI central review and the detection of csPCa at TBx.
resultsThe detection of csPCa at TBx in non-central-reviewed vs central-reviewed group was 41 vs 63%, respectively (p = 0.001). The distribution of PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 at initial assessment vs after mpMRI central review was 0, 37, 47, and 16% vs 39, 9, 35, and 16%, respectively (p < 0.004). Of 43 patients with initial PI-RADS 3 score, respectively 67, 21, and 12, and 0% had a revised PI-RADS score of ≤ 2, 3, 4, and 5. At MVA, mpMRI central review (OR: 1.65, CI 0.85-0.98) was significantly associated with higher csPCa detection at TBx.
conclusionsWe demonstrated that a central review of external mpMRIs may decrease the overcall of equivocal lesions, namely PI-RADS 3, and should be considered to maximize the clinical benefit of TBx in terms of increasing the detection of csPCa and eventually decreasing the rate of unnecessary biopsies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36943477What 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.