ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Expect the unexpected: investigating discordant prostate MRI and biopsy results.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Successes and challenges in developing a magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound machine fusion prostate biopsy service.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Review
- Detecting clinically significant prostate cancer with a distributed parameter model based on quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- RADS ALPHABET: news and tips for young and general radiologists.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Incremental value of prostate-specific antigen density beyond PI-RADS and conventional MRI features for predicting the highest ISUP grade group in patients with prostate cancer diagnosed at initial systematic prostate biopsy.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Significance of Incidental Findings in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Multiparametric MRI combined with PSA density as a noninvasive rule-out strategy in active surveillance for prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- On-table monitoring of prostate MRI could enable tailored utilisation of gadolinium contrast.European radiology · 2025Observational
- Impact of the PI-QUAL MRI quality score on histopathological up-staging from MRI fusion biopsy to final prostatectomy specimen.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- MRI characteristics predict risk of pathological upgrade in patients with ISUP grade group 1 prostate cancer.European radiology · 2025Article
- Leveraging MRI to reduce overtreatment in low‑grade prostate cancer: a retrospective single‑centre cohort study.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Predicting uninformative prostate magnetic resonance imaging sequences: a hypothesis-generating pilot study.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate discrepant radio-pathological outcomes in biopsy-naïve patients undergoing prostate MRI and to provide insights into the underlying causes. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 2780 biopsy-naïve patients undergoing prostate MRI at a tertiary referral centre between October 2015 and June 2022. Exclusion criteria were biopsy not performed, indeterminate MRI findings (PI-RADS 3), and clinically insignificant PCa (Gleason score 3 + 3). Patients with discrepant findings between MRI and biopsy results were categorised into two groups: MRI-negative/Biopsy-positive and MRI-positive/Biopsy-negative (biopsy-positive defined as Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4). An expert uroradiologist reviewed discrepant cases, retrospectively re-assigning PI-RADS scores, identifying any missed MRI targets, and evaluating the quality of MRI scans. Potential explanations for discrepancies included MRI overcalls (including known pitfalls), benign pathology findings, and biopsy targeting errors.
resultsPatients who did not undergo biopsy (n = 1258) or who had indeterminate MRI findings (n = 204), as well as those with clinically insignificant PCa (n = 216), were excluded, with a total of 1102 patients analysed. Of these, 32/1,102 (3%) were classified as MRI-negative/biopsy-positive and 117/1102 (11%) as MRI-positive/biopsy-negative. In the MRI-negative/Biopsy-positive group, 44% of studies were considered non-diagnostic quality. Upon retrospective image review, target lesions were identified in 28% of cases. In the MRI-positive/Biopsy-negative group, 42% of cases were considered to be MRI overcalls, and 32% had an explanatory benign pathological finding, with biopsy targeting errors accounting for 11% of cases.
conclusionProstate MRI demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy, with low occurrences of discrepant findings as defined. Common reasons for MRI-positive/Biopsy-negative cases included explanatory benign findings and MRI overcalls. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study highlights the importance of optimal prostate MRI image quality and expertise in reducing diagnostic errors, improving patient outcomes, and guiding appropriate management decisions in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. KEY POINTS: • Discrepancies between prostate MRI and biopsy results can occur, with higher numbers of MRI-positive/biopsy-negative relative to MRI-negative/biopsy-positive cases. • MRI-positive/biopsy-negative cases were mostly overcalls or explainable by benign biopsy findings. • In about one-third of MRI-negative/biopsy-positive cases, a target lesion was retrospectively identified.
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.