ArticleBJU international2025
A Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1-based predictive model for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis.
Article in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stratified Analysis of Patients Within the PSA Gray Zone (4-10 ng/mL) and Its Clinical Application Value: Development of a Predictive Model for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Quantitative Indicators of PSA, ADC, and Relative T2 Value.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 as a predictor of clinically significant and aggressive prostate cancer: a radical prostatectomy-validated study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- A prospective comparison of the diagnostic performance of a high b-value diffusion-weighted image-guided score versus PI-RADS v2.1 for transition zone prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values in differentiating benign from malignant lesions in prostate PI-RADS v2.1 category 1 "nodules in nodule".Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Clinical Predictors and Risk Factors of Gleason Score Upgrade: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 (v2.1)-based predictive model for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), integrating clinical and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) data, and compare its performance with existing models. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analysed data from patients who underwent prospective mpMRI assessment using the PI-RADS v2.1 scoring system and biopsy at our institution between April 2019 and December 2023. A 'Clinical Baseline' model using patient demographics and laboratory results and an 'MRI Added' model additionally incorporating PI-RADS v2.1 scores and prostate volumes were created and validated on internal and external patients. Both models were compared against two previously published MRI-based algorithms for csPCa using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis.
resultsA total of 1319 patients across internal and external cohorts were included. Our 'MRI Added' model demonstrated significantly improved discriminative ability (AUC
conclusionOur PI-RADS v2.1-based mpMRI model significantly enhances csPCa prediction, outperforming the traditional clinical model in accuracy and reduction of unnecessary biopsies. It proves promising across diverse patient populations, establishing an updated, integrated approach for detection and management 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.