Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39289537›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for staging patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Andrew M Fang, Brian F Chapin, Charles W Shi, Jia Sun, Aliya Qayyum, Vikas Kundra, Paul G Corn, Deborah A Kuban, Gregory C Ravizzini, Devaki Shilpa S Surasi and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Andrew M FangDepartment of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. afang1@mdanderson.org.ORCID 0000-0002-2390-7575
Brian F ChapinDepartment of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Charles W ShiDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-3041-6340
Jia SunDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Aliya QayyumDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa Bay, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1590-9041
Vikas KundraDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Paul G CornDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Deborah A KubanDepartment of Genitourinary Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Gregory C RavizziniDepartment of Genitourinary Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Devaki Shilpa S SurasiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jingfei MaDepartment of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Tharakeswara K BathalaDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStaging patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) with conventional imaging of computed tomography (CT) and bone scintigraphy (BS) is suboptimal. Therefore, we aimed to compare the accuracy of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) with conventional imaging to stage patients with HRPCa.

methodsWe prospectively enrolled patients with newly diagnosed HRPCa (prostate-specific antigen ≥20 ng/ml and/or Grade Group ≥4). Patients underwent BS, CT of the abdomen and pelvis, and WBMRI within 30 days of evaluation. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic performances of detecting metastatic disease to the lymph nodes and bone for WBMRI and conventional imaging. The reference standard was defined by histopathology or by all available clinical information at 6 months of follow-up. To compare diagnostic tests, Exact McNemar's test and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics curves were utilized.

resultsAmong 92 patients enrolled, 15 (16.3%) and 8 (8.7%) patients were found to have lymphatic and bone metastases, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of WBMRI in detecting lymphatic metastases were 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.32-0.84), 0.84 (0.74-0.92), and 0.80 (0.71-0.88), respectively, while CT were 0.20 (0.04-0.48), 0.92 (0.84-0.97), and 0.80 (0.71-0.88). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of WBMRI to detect bone metastases were 0.25 (0.03-0.65), 0.94 (0.87-0.98), and 0.88 (0.80-0.94), respectively, while CT and BS were 0.12 (0-0.53), 0.94 (0.87-0.98), and 0.87 (0.78-0.93). For evaluating lymphatic metastases, WBMRI demonstrated a higher sensitivity (p = 0.031) and discrimination compared to CT (0.72 versus 0.56, p = 0.019).

conclusionsFor staging patients with HRPCa, WBMRI outperforms CT in the detection of lymphatic metastases and performs as well as CT and BS in the detection of bone metastases. Further studies are needed to assess the cost effectiveness of WBMRI and the utility of combined PSMA PET and WBMRI.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsWhole Body ImagingAgedAged, 80 and overHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingProspective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenROC CurveTomography, X-Ray ComputedProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID39289537

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.