ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Diffusion weighted image-guided transitional zone scoring in the detection of transitional zone prostate cancer: comparison with current PI-RADS v2.1 scoring.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the performance of diffusion-weighted imaging-guided transitional zone (TZ) lesion scoring on T2-weighted imaging (DWI-guided TZ scoring) to conventional PI-RADS TZ scoring.
methodsForty patients carried transition zone prostate cancer (TZPCa), and 40 patients had benign prostatic hyperplasia without TZPCa. A lesion-base, one-to-one correlation between the pathologic mapping sheet and the corresponding MR imaging was conducted by consensus between the genitourinary-specialized radiologist and pathologist. DWI-guided TZ scoring was defined as evaluating the DWI/apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) images first, identifying the suspicious foci, then correlating the foci with the T2-weighted imaging, and finally assigning the PI-RADS score based on PI-RADS v2.1. Three other radiologists independently recorded the PI-RADS v2.1 scoring for TZ and the DWI-guided TZ scoring, with a time interval of 4 weeks.
resultsWhen a PI-RADS score of ≥ 3 was considered a positive lesion, the specificity, PPV, NPV and sensitivity between the DWI-guided TZ scoring and conventional PI-RADS TZ scoring were 0.896 vs. 0.542 (p < .001), 0.764 vs. 0.439 (p < .001), 0.853 vs. 0.759 (p = .001), and 0.687 vs. 0.676 (p = .836), respectively. When PI-RADS scores ≥ 4 was considered cancer-positive, the specificity and PPV were also higher when applying DWI-guided TZ scoring (0.986 vs. 0.944, p = .007; 0.943 vs. 0.810, p = .009, respectively); however, the sensitivity and NPV were not statistically different (0.468 vs. 0.468, p = .998; 0.785 vs. 0.776, p = .537, respectively). The interobserver agreement presented as κ-value was higher in DWI-guided TZ scoring (0.584) than in conventional PI-RADS TZ scoring (0.155) (p = .003).
conclusionsDWI-guided TZ scoring improves the interobserver agreement, specificity, and predictive value without impairing the sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39354237What 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.