Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38995382›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Diagnostic performance of ADC and ADCratio in MRI-based prostate cancer assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Georgios Agrotis, Eduardo Pooch, Mohamed Abdelatty, Sean Benson, Aikaterini Vassiou, Marianna Vlychou, Regina G H Beets-Tan, Ivo G Schoots

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Georgios AgrotisDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece. g.agrotis@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3752-1315
Eduardo PoochDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mohamed AbdelattyDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sean BensonDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kasr Al-Ainy Hospital, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.
Aikaterini VassiouDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece.
Marianna VlychouDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece.
Regina G H Beets-TanDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ivo G SchootsDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify factors influencing the diagnostic performance of the quantitative imaging biomarkers ADC and ADCratio in prostate cancer (PCa) detection. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, Medline and Web of Science, for studies evaluating ADC values and ADCratio for PCa diagnosis, using the same patient cohorts and using histopathological references as ground truth. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, summary ROC curves and AUCs were calculated from constructed contingency data tables. Diagnostic performance (AUC) was quantitatively pooled using a bivariate mixed effects model. For identifying influencing factors, subgroup analysis, publication bias and heterogeneity assessment were investigated.

resultsThirteen studies, involving 1038 patients and 1441 lesions, were included. For ADC, the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 80% (95% CI: 74-85%) and 78% (95% CI: 70-85%), respectively. For ADCratio pooled sensitivity and specificity was 80% (95% CI: 74-84%) and 80% (95% CI: 71-87%). Summary ROC analysis revealed AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89), respectively. Meta-regression showed heterogeneity between both imaging biomarkers. Subgroup analysis showed that ADCratio improved diagnostic performance in comparison to ADC when including both peripheral and transitional zone lesions (AUC: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.84-0.90] and 0.82 [95% CI: 0.79-0.85], respectively).

conclusionBoth ADC and ADCratio imaging biomarkers showed good and comparable diagnostic performance in PCa diagnosis. However, ADCratio shows better diagnostic performance than ADC in diagnosing transition zone cancers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In quantitative MRI-based PCa diagnosis, the imaging biomarker ADCratio is useful in challenging MRI readings of lesions. Understanding the performance of quantitative imaging biomarkers better can aid diagnostic MRI protocols, enhancing the precision of PCa assessments. KEY POINTS: MRI diffusion-weighted imaging-based ADC and ADCratio have comparable diagnostic performance in PCa assessment. In contrast to ADC, the ADCratio improves diagnostic performance, when assessing whole gland lesions. Compared to ADCratio, the ADC demonstrates enhanced diagnostic performance when evaluating peripheral zone lesions.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsSensitivity and SpecificityDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleApparent diffusion coefficientApparent diffusion coefficient ratioDiffusion-weighted imagingMagnetic imaging resonanceProstate neoplasm

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.