ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2024
MRI evaluation of vesical imaging reporting and data system for bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multi-modal approach for decision making in bladder cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Review
- Diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement of the nacVI-RADS for bladder cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a prospective validation study.European radiology · 2025Article
- Antispasmodic Agents in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Urinary Bladder-A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) has demonstrated effectiveness in predicting muscle invasion in bladder cancer before treatment. The urgent need currently is to evaluate the muscle invasion status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for bladder cancer. This study aims to ascertain the accuracy of VI-RADS in detecting muscle invasion post-NAC treatment and assess its diagnostic performance across readers with varying experience levels.
methodsIn this retrospective study, patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after NAC from September 2015 to September 2018 were included. VI-RADS scores were independently assessed by five radiologists, consisting of three experienced in bladder MRI and two inexperienced radiologists. Comparison of VI-RADS scores was made with postoperative histopathological diagnosis. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (ROC) was used for evaluating diagnostic performance, calculating sensitivity, specificity, and area under ROC (AUC)). Interobserver agreement was assessed using the weighted kappa statistic.
resultsThe final analysis included 46 patients (mean age: 61 years ± 9 [standard deviation]; age range: 39-70 years; 42 men). The pooled AUC for predicting muscle invasion was 0.945 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.893-0.977) for experienced readers, and 0.910 (95% CI: 0.831-0.959) for inexperienced readers, and 0.932 (95% CI: 0.892-0.961) for all readers. At an optimal cut-off value ≥ 4, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 74.1% (range: 66.0-80.9%) and 94.1% (range: 88.6-97.7%) for experienced readers, and 63.9% (range: 59.6-68.1%) and 86.4% (range: 84.1-88.6%) for inexperienced readers. Interobserver agreement ranged from substantial to excellent between all readers (k = 0.79-0.92).
conclusionsVI-RADS accurately assesses muscle invasion in bladder cancer patients after NAC and exhibits good diagnostic performance across readers with different experience levels.
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.