Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38993367›Full record

ArticleBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022

Head-to-Head Comparison between High-Resolution Microultrasound Imaging and Multiparametric MRI in Detecting and Local Staging of Bladder Cancer: The BUS-MISS Protocol.

Pietro Diana, Giovanni Lughezzani, Alberto Saita, Alessandro Uleri, Nicola Frego, Roberto Contieri, Nicolomaria Buffi, Luca Balzarini, Federico D'Orazio, Colombo Piergiuseppe and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Gold nanorod-assisted theranostic solution for nonvisible residual disease in bladder cancer.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

15 authors.

Pietro DianaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni LughezzaniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Alberto SaitaDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro UleriDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Nicola FregoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Roberto ContieriDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Nicolomaria BuffiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Luca BalzariniDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Federico D'OrazioDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Colombo PiergiuseppeDepartment of Pathology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Maria Grazia ElefanteDepartment of Pathology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Massimo LazzeriDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Giorgio GuazzoniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Paolo CasaleDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Rodolfo HurleDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMRI has been proposed as a new staging tool for bladder cancer (BC), but use is limited by its high costs and low availability. 29-MHz high-resolution micro-ultrasound (mUS) technology has been suggested as an alternative to detect BC and distinguish between muscle-invasive and non-muscle invasive BC.

objectiveThe aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of mUS vs. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in differentiating NMIBC and MIBC at definitive pathological examination.

methodsThis is a prospective study of patients with a primary diagnosis of BC with either positive urine cytology (UC) or negative UC and a tumor size > 25 mm from a tertiary care high volume center. mUS, with the ExactVu system with an EV29L 29 MHz side-fire transducer, and a 3-Tesla MRI were performed before transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in every patient before undergoing TURBT. We compared the imaging results with pathological reports.

resultsThe analyzed population consisted of 58 individuals. The reported mUS and MRI sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were 85.0%, 76.3%, 65.4%, and 90.6%, versus 85.0%, 50.0%, 47.2%, and 86.4%, respectively. In accuracy analysis, the AUC for mUS and MRI were respectively 0.807 and 0.675.

conclusionsIn our population mUS seems to have a better performance in distinguishing NMIBC from MIBC. The main limitation of mUS is the probe shape that makes its use problematic in cases with a large prostate and inadequate rectal preparation. Further studies with a larger population are ongoing to compare and validate these techniques in this setting.

Indexed as

Bladder cancerdiagnosismagnetic resonancemicroultrasoundpre-operative local stagingtechnologytreatment strategy

Identifiers

PMID38993367
PMCPMC11181852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.