ArticleEuropean urology open science2024
Inter-reader Agreement for Prostate Cancer Detection Using Micro-ultrasound: A Multi-institutional Study.
Article in European urology open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04981223 (Predicting Location and Extent of Prostate Cancer Using Micro-Ultrasound Imaging), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Predicting Location and Extent of Prostate Cancer Using Micro-Ultrasound Imaging
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer Detection.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- MUSegNet: Automated detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on micro-ultrasound.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- From Detection to Surveillance: The Evolving Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Head-to-head Comparison of Multimodal Imaging for Prostate Cancer Detection and Local Staging with Whole-mount Histopathology Reference.European urology oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- AI-enhanced micro-ultrasound improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at biopsy.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- ProMUS-NET: Artificial intelligence detects more prostate cancer than urologists on micro-ultrasonography.BJU international · 2025Article
- Micro-Ultrasound in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Review and Comparison with Multiparametric MRI.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Review
- ProCUSNet: Prostate Cancer Detection on B-mode Transrectal Ultrasound Using Artificial Intelligence for Targeting During Prostate Biopsies.European urology oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and objective: Micro-ultrasound (MUS) uses a high-frequency transducer with superior resolution to conventional ultrasound, which may differentiate prostate cancer from normal tissue and thereby allow targeted biopsy. Preliminary evidence has shown comparable sensitivity to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but consistency between users has yet to be described. Our objective was to assess agreement of MUS interpretation across multiple readers. Methods: After institutional review board approval, we prospectively collected MUS images for 57 patients referred for prostate biopsy after multiparametric MRI from 2022 to 2023. MUS images were interpreted by six urologists at four institutions with varying experience (range 2-6 yr). Readers were blinded to MRI results and clinical data. The primary outcome was reader agreement on the locations of suspicious lesions, measured in terms of Light's κ and positive percent agreement (PPA). Reader sensitivity for identification of grade group (GG) ≥2 prostate cancer was a secondary outcome. Key findings and limitations: Analysis revealed a κ value of 0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.39). PPA was 33% (95% CI 25-42%). The mean patient-level sensitivity for GG ≥2 cancer was 0.66 ± 0.05 overall and 0.87 ± 0.09 when cases with anterior lesions were excluded. Readers were 12 times more likely to detect higher-grade cancers (GG ≥3), with higher levels of agreement for this subgroup (κ 0.41, PPA 45%). Key limitations include the inability to prospectively biopsy reader-delineated targets and the inability of readers to perform live transducer maneuvers. Conclusions and clinical implications: Inter-reader agreement on the location of suspicious lesions on MUS is lower than rates previously reported for MRI. MUS sensitivity for cancer in the anterior gland is lacking. Patient summary: The ability to find cancer on imaging scans can vary between doctors. We found that there was frequent disagreement on the location of prostate cancer when doctors were using a new high-resolution scan method called micro-ultrasound. This suggests that the performance of micro-ultrasound is not yet consistent enough to replace MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) for diagnosis of prostate cancer.
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.