Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37025477›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2023

Impact of prebiopsy MRI on prostate cancer staging: Results from the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry.

Erik Skaaheim Haug, Tor Åge Myklebust, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Lars Anders Rokne Reisæter, Kirsti Aas, Arne Stenrud Berg, Christoph Müller, Bjørn Hofmann, Øystein Størkersen, Kim L Nilsen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Effect of preoperative PI-RADS assessment on pathological outcomes in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  4. 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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Erik Skaaheim HaugDepartment of Urology Vestfold Hospital Trust Tønsberg Norway.
Tor Åge MyklebustCancer Registry of Norway Oslo Norway.
Patrick Juliebø-JonesDepartment of Urology Haukeland University Hospital Bergen Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-1283
Lars Anders Rokne ReisæterHelse Bergen HF, Department of Radiology Haukeland University Hospital Bergen Norway.
Kirsti AasDepartment of Urology Oslo University Hospital Oslo Norway.
Arne Stenrud BergDepartment of Oncology Drammen Hospital Drammen Norway.
Christoph MüllerDepartment of Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centre Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand Norway.
Bjørn HofmannDepartment of Health Sciences Norwegian University of Science and Technology Gjøvik Norway.
Øystein StørkersenDepartment of Pathology, St. Olavs Hospital Trondheim University Hospital Trondheim Norway.
Kim L NilsenCancer Registry of Norway Oslo Norway.
Tom Børge JohannesenCancer Registry of Norway Oslo Norway.
Christian BeislandDepartment of Urology Haukeland University Hospital Bergen Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3216-4937
Cancer Registry of Norway · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NOOslo University Hospital · NODrammen Hospital · NOSørlandet Sykehus · NOSt Olav's University Hospital · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the 2015 introduction of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (MRI-P) as the standard of care for diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa) by the Norwegian public health care authorities. There were three specific objectives of this study: first, to evaluate the consequences of using different TNM manuals for clinical T-staging (cT-staging) in a national setting; second, to determine if the data reveals that MRI-P based cT-staging is superior to digital rectal examination (DRE)-based cT-staging compared with pathological T-stage (pT-stage) post radical prostatectomy; and third, to assess whether treatment allocations have changed over time. Materials and Methods: All patients registered in the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry between 2004 and 2021 were retrieved and 5538 were eligible for inclusion. Concordance between clinical T-stage (cT-stage) and pT-stage was assessed by percentage agreement, Cohen's kappa and Gwet's agreement. Results: MR visualisation of lesions influences reporting of tumour extension beyond DRE findings. Agreement between cT-stage and pT-stage declined from 2004 to 2009, which coincided with an increase in the percentage being pT3. From 2010, agreement increased, which aligned with changes in cT-staging and the introduction of MRI-P. From 2017, regarding the reporting of cT-DRE and cT-Total (overall cT-stage), agreement diminished for cT-DRE but remained relatively stable (>60%) for cT-Total. Regarding treatment allocation, the study suggests that staging with MRI-P has shifted treatment towards radiotherapy in locally advanced high-risk disease. Conclusion: Introduction of MRI-P has affected cT-stage reporting. Agreement between cT-stage and pT-stage appears to have improved. This study suggests that use of MRI-P influences treatment decisions in certain patient subgroups.

Indexed as

diagnosisMRIoutcomepopulation basedprostate cancerrisk groupsstagingTNMtreatment

Identifiers

PMID37025477
PMCPMC10071082
OpenAlexW4315434493

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.