Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38551559›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2024

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Arya Haj-Mirzaian, Kristine S Burk, Ronilda Lacson, Daniel I Glazer, Sanjay Saini, Adam S Kibel, Ramin Khorasani

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. An interpretableEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Arya Haj-MirzaianCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kristine S BurkCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ronilda LacsonCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Daniel I GlazerCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sanjay SainiDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Adam S KibelDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ramin KhorasaniCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

DECODE: Diagnostic Excellence Center on Diagnostic ErrorR18HS029348 · AHRQ · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI KHORASANI, RAMIN, LACSON, RONILDA · 2022 to 2025
$4.0M
AHRQ HHS R18 HS029348
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). However, inconsistencies across different strategies create challenges for drawing a definitive conclusion. Objective: To determine the optimal prostate biopsy decision-making strategy for avoiding unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the risk of missing csPCa by combining MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and clinical data. Data Sources: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 1, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies that evaluated men with suspected but not confirmed csPCa who underwent MRI PI-RADS followed by prostate biopsy were included. Each study had proposed a biopsy plan by combining PI-RADS and clinical data. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Studies were independently assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Quality of studies was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mixed-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models with multimodel inference were performed. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Independent risk factors of csPCa were determined by performing meta-regression between the rate of csPCa and PI-RADS and clinical parameters. Yields of different biopsy strategies were assessed by performing diagnostic meta-analysis. Results: The analyses included 72 studies comprising 36 366 patients. Univariable meta-regression showed that PI-RADS 4 (β-coefficient [SE], 7.82 [3.85]; P = .045) and PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 23.18 [4.46]; P < .001) lesions, but not PI-RADS 3 lesions (β-coefficient [SE], -4.08 [3.06]; P = .19), were significantly associated with a higher risk of csPCa. When considered jointly in a multivariable model, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was the only clinical variable significantly associated with csPCa (β-coefficient [SE], 15.50 [5.14]; P < .001) besides PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 9.19 [3.33]; P < .001). Avoiding biopsy in patients with lesions with PI-RADS category of 3 or less and PSAD less than 0.10 (vs <0.15) ng/mL2 resulted in reducing 30% (vs 48%) of unnecessary biopsies (compared with performing biopsy in all suspected patients), with an estimated sensitivity of 97% (vs 95%) and number needed to harm of 17 (vs 15). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that in patients with suspected csPCa, patient-tailored prostate biopsy decisions based on PI-RADS and PSAD could prevent unnecessary procedures while maintaining high sensitivity.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsBiopsyHumansMaleProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID38551559
PMCPMC10980971
OpenAlexW4393318776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.