Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37584213›Full record

ArticleCancer2023

The oncologic risk of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic cores in patients treated with radical prostatectomy.

Christopher D Gaffney, Amy L Tin, Jonathan Fainberg, Samson Fine, Ghalib Jibara, Karim Touijer, James Eastham, Peter Scardino, Vincent Laudone, Andrew J Vickers and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The contemporary management of prostate cancer.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians
    Review
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher D GaffneyDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7785-6611
Amy L TinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Jonathan FainbergDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Samson FineDepartment of Genitourinary Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Ghalib JibaraSouthern California Permanente Medical Group, Fontana, California, USA.
Karim TouijerDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
James EasthamDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Peter ScardinoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Vincent LaudoneDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Behfar EhdaieDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USKaiser Permanente Fontana Medical Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
SPORE In Prostate CancerP50CA092629 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JAMES A EASTHAM · 2001 to 2026
$63.0M
UROLOGY ONCOLOGY RESEARCH TRAINING GRANTT32CA082088 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Brett Stewart Carver · 1999 to 2026
$7.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092629NCI NIH HHS T32 CA082088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy (MRI-biopsy) detects high-Grade Group (GG) prostate cancers not identified by systematic biopsy (S-biopsy). However, questions have been raised whether cancers detected by MRI-biopsy and S-biopsy, grade-for-grade, are of equivalent oncologic risk. The authors evaluated the relative oncologic risk of GG diagnosed by S-biopsy and MRI-biopsy.

methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of all patients who had both MRI-biopsy and S-biopsy and underwent with prostatectomy (2014-2022) at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Three logistic regression models were used with adverse pathology as the primary outcome (primary pattern 4, any pattern 5, seminal vesicle invasion, or lymph node involvement). The first model included the presurgery prostate-specific antigen level, the number of positive and negative S-biopsy cores, S-biopsy GG, and MRI-biopsy GG. The second model excluded MRI-biopsy GG to obtain the average risk based on S-biopsy GG. The third model excluded S-biopsy GG to obtain the risk based on MRI-biopsy GG. A secondary analysis using Cox regression evaluated the 12-month risk of biochemical recurrence.

resultsIn total, 991 patients were identified, including 359 (36%) who had adverse pathology. MRI-biopsy GG influenced oncologic risk compared with S-biopsy GG alone (p < .001). However, if grade was discordant between biopsies, then the risk was intermediate between grades. For example, the average risk of advanced pathology for patients who had GG2 and GG3 on S-biopsy was 19% and 66%, respectively, but the average risk was 47% for patients who had GG2 on S-biopsy and patients who had GG3 on MRI-biopsy. The equivalent estimates for 12-month biochemical recurrence were 5.8%, 15%, and 10%, respectively.

conclusionsThe current findings cast doubt on the practice of defining risk group based on the highest GG. Because treatment algorithms depend fundamentally on GG, further research is urgently required to assess the oncologic risk of prostate tumors depending on detection technique. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to help diagnose prostate cancer can help identify more high-grade cancers than using a systematic template biopsy alone. However, we do not know if high-grade cancers diagnosed with the help of an MRI are as dangerous to the patient as high-grade cancers diagnosed with a systematic biopsy. We examined all of our patients who had an MRI biopsy and a systematic biopsy and then had their prostates removed to find out if these patients had risk factors and signs of aggressive cancer (cancer that spread outside the prostate or was very high grade). We found that, if there was a difference in grade between the systematic biopsy and the MRI-targeted biopsy, the risk of aggressive cancer was between the two grades.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeoplasm GradingProstatectomyRetrospective StudiesSeminal Vesiclesadverse pathologybiochemical recurrencegrade migrationmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)prostate biopsy

Identifiers

PMID37584213
PMCPMC11249356
OpenAlexW4385851564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.