Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38654626›Full record

ArticleThe Permanente journal2024

The Added Value of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Patient Selection.

Erin M Jyo, Hyo-Chun Yoon, Bradford Burton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Permanente journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Erin M JyoMedical Education, University of Hawai'i at Manoa John A Burns School of Medicine, Honolulu, HI, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-5417-9397
Hyo-Chun YoonDiagnostic Imaging, Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Bradford BurtonDiagnostic Imaging, Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Honolulu, HI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere has been a rapid increase in the utilization of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer detection. The objective of this study was to measure the increase in utilization of MRI before prostate biopsy and the effects on the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RAD) scores and Gleason grades over a 5-year interval in an integrated health system.

methodsThe authors conducted a retrospective analysis of prostate MRI studies prior to biopsy in the calendar years of 2017 and 2022. Peak PI-RADS score, peak Gleason grade of suspected prostatic lesions, and the number of biopsy cores were collected from radiology reports and pathology reports from patients' electronic health records, respectively. All statistical tests were 2-tailed with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Categorical data analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney tests. Continuous data analyses were performed using t-tests.

resultsThe total number of prostate MRIs and the number of MRIs with subsequent biopsy respectively increased by 178% and 215% over a 5-year interval (2017-2022). There was a higher proportion of MRI studies with an associated biopsy given a PI-RADS score of ≥ 3 (91%) and a Gleason grade of ≥ 7 (61%) in 2022 than in 2017 (PI-RADS: 75%; Gleason: 28%).

conclusionsIncreased utilization of prostate MRI has been associated with a higher proportion of biopsies with high PI-RADS and Gleason scores consistent with improved patient selection in this integrated health system.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm GradingPatient SelectionProstatic NeoplasmsAgedBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstateRetrospective StudiesGleason gradeMRIPI-RADSprostate biopsyprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID38654626
PMCPMC11232905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.