ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2023
A prospective study of the prostate health index density and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The research progress on diagnostic indicators related to prostate-specific antigen gray-zone prostate cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical utility of the prostate health index density in patients with negative mpMRI or prior negative biopsy.Prostate international · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and internal validation of a parsimonious logistic regression model integrating multiparametric clinical indicators for predicting prostate cancer in the PI-RADS 3 cohort.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Utility of the prostate health index density for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging findings.Prostate international · 2025Article
- Enhancement of inter-/intra-reader agreement using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 for prostate cancer detection in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound software fusion prostate biopsy.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcome measures for pain and tolerability of transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia using the PrecisionPoint™ transperineal access system: A prospective study for a real-world patient experience.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of prostate health index in patients with no index lesion on mpMRI or negative previous combined biopsy.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Article
- Methylated DNA Markers in Voided Urine for the Identification of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Advances in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with biomarkers for the diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the predictive performance of the prostate health index (PHI) and PHI density (PHID), for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in patients with a PI-RADS score ≤3. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients tested for total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA, ≤100 ng/mL), free PSA (fPSA), and p2PSA at Peking University First Hospital were prospectively enrolled. Possible predictive factors of csPCa were analyzed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results were expressed as area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The cutoff values of PHI and PHID were determined.
resultsWe enrolled 222 patients in this study. The prevalence of csPCa in the PI-RADS ≤3 subgroup (n=89) was 22.47% (20/89). Age, tPSA, F/T, prostate volume, PSA density, PHI, PHID, and PI-RADS score were significantly associated with csPCa. PHID (AUC: 0.829 [95% CI: 0.717-0.941]) was the best predictor of csPCa. PHID >0.956 was set as the threshold of suspicious csPCa with a sensitivity of 85.00% and a specificity of 73.91%, avoiding 94.44% of unnecessary biopsies but missing 15.00% csPCa. A threshold of PHI ≥52.83 showed the same sensitivity but a rather lower specificity of 65.22% that avoided 93.75% of unnecessary biopsies.
conclusionsPHI and PHID have the best predictive performance of csPCa in patients with PI-RADS score ≤3. A threshold value of PHID ≥0.956 may be used as the criterion for biopsy in these patients.
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.