ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Improving reader accuracy and specificity with the addition of hybrid multidimensional-MRI to multiparametric-MRI in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancers.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective Validation of an Automated Hybrid Multidimensional MRI Tool for Prostate Cancer Detection Using Targeted Biopsy: Comparison with PI-RADS-based Assessment.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Trial
- Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Evaluation of Biological Techniques.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multi-regional Multiparametric Deep Learning Radiomics for Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Current state of the art of new prostate MRI technologies and potential future developments.BJR open · 2026Review
- Toward a Refined PI-RADS: The Feasibility and Limitations of More Informative Metrics in Reviewing MRI Scans.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- Emerging and anticipated innovations in prostate cancer MRI and their impact on patient care.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- MRI-based virtual pathology of the prostate.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
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
purposeCompare reader performance when adding the Hybrid Multidimensional-MRI (HM-MRI) map to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI+HM-MRI) versus mpMRI alone and inter-reader agreement in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancers (CSPCa).
methodsAll 61 patients who underwent mpMRI (T2-, diffusion-weighted (DWI), and contrast-enhanced scans) and HM-MRI (with multiple TE/b-value combinations) before prostatectomy or MRI-fused-transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy between August, 2012 and February, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Two experienced readers (R1, R2) and two less-experienced readers (less than 6-year MRI prostate experience) (R3, R4) interpreted mpMRI without/with HM-MRI in the same sitting. Readers recorded the PI-RADS 3-5 score, lesion location, and change in score after adding HM-MRI. Each radiologist's mpMRI+HM-MRI and mpMRI performance measures (AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy) based on pathology, and Fleiss' kappa inter-reader agreement was calculated and compared.
resultsPer-sextant R3 and R4 mpMRI+HM-MRI accuracy (82% 81% vs. 77%, 71%; p=.006, <.001) and specificity (89%, 88% vs. 84%, 75%; p=.009, <.001) were higher than with mpMRI. Per-patient R4 mpMRI+HM-MRI specificity improved (48% from 7%; p<.001). R1 and R2 mpMRI+HM-MRI specificity per-sextant (80%, 93% vs. 81%, 93%; p=.51,>.99) and per-patient (37%, 41% vs. 48%, 37%; p=.16, .57) remained similar to mpMRI. R1 and R2 per-patient AUC with mpMRI+HM-MRI (0.63, 0.64 vs. 0.67, 0.61; p=.33, .36) remained similar to mpMRI, but R3 and R4 mpMRI+HM-MRI AUC (0.73, 0.62) approached R1 and R2 AUC. Per-patient inter-reader agreement, mpMRI+HM-MRI Fleiss Kappa, was higher than mpMRI (0.36 [95% CI 0.26, 0.46] vs. 0.17 [95% CI 0.07, 0.27]); p=.009).
conclusionAdding HM-MRI to mpMRI (mpMRI+HM-MRI) improved specificity and accuracy for less-experienced readers, improving overall inter-reader agreement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37358605What 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.