ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2023
Prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 in combination with clinical parameters for prostate cancer detection: a single center experience.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiomics from multisite MRI and clinical data to predict clinically significant prostate cancer.Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram prediction model for clinically significant prostate cancer combined with PI-RADS V2.1, MRI quantitative parameters and clinical indicators: a two-center study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) has been challenged due to its lower diagnostic accuracy and higher false-positive rates for prostate cancer detection. This study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 in combination with clinical parameters in patients with suspected prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 424 men with suspicion of prostate cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer defined as a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater. The prediction performance was compared with prostate specific antigen (PSA), free/total PSA ratio (f/t PSA), PSA density (PSAD), PI-RADS v2 alone, and PI-RADS v2 plus PSAD using receiver operating characteristics (ROCs).
resultsIn total, 231 out of 424 cases (54.48%) were pathologically diagnosed as prostate cancer. The percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer was higher in patients with PI-RADS v2 score of 4 or greater compared to PI-RADS v2 score of less than 4 (90.86% vs. 55.88%, P < 0.001). Age, PSA level, f/t PSA, PSAD, and PI-RADS v2 were significant independent predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer. The ROC area under the curve of PI-RADS v2 plus PSAD (0.952) was larger compared with PSA (0.845), f/t PSA (0.719), PSAD (0.920), and PI-RADS v2 alone (0.885).
conclusionPI-RADS v2 in combination with PSAD may help detect clinically significant prostate cancer and provide benefit in making the decision to biopsy men at suspicion of prostate cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37171702What 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.