Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37622756›Full record

ArticleThe Prostate2023

Is prostatic adenocarcinoma with cribriform architecture more difficult to detect on prostate MRI?

Mason J Belue, Zoë Blake, Enis C Yilmaz, Yue Lin, Stephanie A Harmon, Daniel R Nemirovsky, Jacob J Enders, Alexander P Kenigsberg, Neil Mendhiratta, Michael Rothberg and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Prostate, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mason J BelueMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1298-9958
Zoë BlakeUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3924-8690
Enis C YilmazMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5301-3137
Yue LinMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Stephanie A HarmonMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2507-2399
Daniel R NemirovskyUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jacob J EndersUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9322-6396
Alexander P KenigsbergUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Neil MendhirattaUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Michael RothbergUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Antoun ToubajiLaboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Maria J MerinoLaboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2098-8426
Sandeep GurramLaboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Bradford J WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4297-0051
Peter L ChoykeUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1086-8826
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0853-6494
Peter A PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0190-5931
National Institutes of Health · USNational Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Imaging, image guided biopsy and treatment of prostate cancerZIABC012062 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI TÜRKBEY, BARIS · 2021 to 2025
$1.3M
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA BC012062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCribriform (CBFM) pattern on prostate biopsy has been implicated as a predictor for high-risk features, potentially leading to adverse outcomes after definitive treatment. This study aims to investigate whether the CBFM pattern containing prostate cancers (PCa) were associated with false negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and determine the association between MRI and histopathological disease burden.

methodsPatients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), combined 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided systematic (SB) and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy were retrospectively queried for the presence of CBFM pattern at biopsy. Biopsy cores and lesions were categorized as follows: C0 = benign, C1 = PCa with no CBFM pattern, C2 = PCa with CBFM pattern. Correlation between cancer core length (CCL) and measured MRI lesion dimension were assessed using a modified Pearson correlation test for clustered data. Differences between the biopsy core groups were assessed with the Wilcoxon-signed rank test with clustering.

resultsBetween 2015 and 2022, a total of 131 consecutive patients with CBFM pattern on prostate biopsy and pre-biopsy mpMRI were included. Clinical feature analysis included 1572 systematic biopsy cores (1149 C0, 272 C1, 151 C2) and 736 MRI-targeted biopsy cores (253 C0, 272 C1, 211 C2). Of the 131 patients with confirmed CBFM pathology, targeted biopsy (TBx) alone identified CBFM in 76.3% (100/131) of patients and detected PCa in 97.7% (128/131) patients. SBx biopsy alone detected CBFM in 61.1% (80/131) of patients and PCa in 90.8% (119/131) patients. TBx and SBx had equivalent detection in patients with smaller prostates (p = 0.045). For both PCa lesion groups there was a positive and significant correlation between maximum MRI lesion dimension and CCL (C1 lesions: p < 0.01, C2 lesions: p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in CCL between C1 and C2 lesions for T2 scores of 3 and 5 (p ≤ 0.01, p ≤ 0.01, respectively) and PI-RADS 5 lesions (p ≤ 0.01), with C2 lesions having larger CCL, despite no significant difference in MRI lesion dimension.

conclusionsThe extent of disease for CBFM-containing tumors is difficult to capture on mpMRI. When comparing MRI lesions of similar dimensions and PIRADS scores, CBFM-containing tumors appear to have larger cancer yield on biopsy. Proper staging and planning of therapeutic interventions is reliant on accurate mpMRI estimation. Special considerations should be taken for patients with CBFM pattern on prostate biopsy.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstateRetrospective Studiescancer core lengthcribriform patternmultiparametric MRIprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID37622756
PMCPMC10840859
OpenAlexW4386152069

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.