ArticleAmerican journal of clinical and experimental urology2024
Prognostic significance of the PI-RADS score in men with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy.
Article in American journal of clinical and experimental urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The evolving PI-RADS paradigm.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Review
- Clinical significance of quantification of perineural cancer invasion on MRI-targeted prostate biopsy.Diagnostic pathology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMRI-targeted biopsy (T-Bx) for which Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment categories are useful has been shown to more accurately detect clinically significant prostate cancer. However, the prognostic significance of the PI-RADS in prostate cancer patients needs further investigation. In the present study, we compared radical prostatectomy findings and postoperative oncologic outcomes in men with prostate cancer initially undergoing T-Bx for PI-RADS 3 vs. 4 vs. 5 lesions.
methodsWe assessed consecutive patients undergoing T-Bx with concurrent systematic biopsy (S-Bx), followed by radical prostatectomy. Within our Surgical Pathology database, we identified a total of 207 men where prostatic adenocarcinoma was detected on either S-Bx or T-Bx, or both.
resultsProstate cancer was detected on S-Bx only (n = 32; 15%), T-Bx only (n = 39; 19%), or both S-Bx and T-Bx (n = 136; 66%). These patients had PI-RADS 3 (n = 42; 20%), 4 (n = 86; 42%), or 5 (n = 79; 38%) lesions, while T-Bx detected cancer in 31 (74%) of PI-RADS 3 cases, 72 (84%) of PI-RADS 4 cases, and 72 (91%) of PI-RADS 5 cases. There were no significant differences in any of the clinicopathologic features examined, including tumor grade on biopsy or prostatectomy and pT or pN stage, among the PI-RADS 3 vs. 4 vs. 5 groups, except a significantly higher rate of positive margin and significantly larger tumor volume in PI-RADS 5 cases than in PI-RADS 3 cases. Univariate and multivariable analyses revealed significantly higher risks of biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy in patients with PI-RADS 5 lesion than in those with PI-RADS 3 or 4 lesion. Additionally, compared with respective controls, detection of any grade cancer (
conclusionPI-RADS 5 lesions were thus found to independently predict a significantly poorer postoperative prognosis. Moreover, the failure of detection of any grade cancer or clinically significant cancer on T-Bx of PI-RADS 5 lesion may particularly indicate favorable outcomes in radical prostatectomy cases.
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.