ArticleUrology research & practice2023
The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Article in Urology research & practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for clinically significant prostate cancer and to determine whether applying Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score could improve the diagnostic pathway besides the biochemical characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, 199 patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were included. Logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic curve were performed to determine independent predictors and to compare diagnostic performance of indicators for clinically significant prostate cancer. Two models were established. In model 1, the diagnostic performance of prostate-specific antigen- and prostatespecific antigen density-derived parameters were evaluated. In model 2, the prediction potential of model 1 plus Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score was analyzed.
resultsSixty-four patients were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer by histopathological analysis (32.1%). In model 1, a prostate-specific antigen density >0.15 was labeled as the strongest predictor of malignancy. In model 2, a prostatespecific antigen density >0.15, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3, and a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 demonstrated the strongest association with malignancy. Among these parameters, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 (P=.003) was found to be the most robust predictor for malignancy, followed by a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3 (P=.012). The multivariate analysis revealed higher accuracy in model 2 (76.9%) than in model 1 (67.8%). The area under curve values with respect to prostatespecific antigen, prostate-specific antigen density, model 1, and model 2 were 0.632, 0.741, 0.656, and 0.798, respectively.
conclusionThese results indicated that Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score and prostate-specific antigen density are independent predictors for the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. Both prostate-specific antigen density and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score should be risen to prominence in the decision of biopsy instead of PSA.
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.