ArticleProstate international2024
Comparisons of three scoring systems based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Article in Prostate international, 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In this study, we aimed to validate and compare three scoring systems based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy-naïve patients. Method: In this study, we included patients who underwent MRI examinations between January 2018 and December 2022, with MRI-targeted fusion biopsy (MRGB) as the reference standard. The MRI findings were categorized using three bpMRI-based scorings, in all of them the diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was the dominant sequence for peripheral zone (PZ) and T2-weighed imaging (T2WI) was the dominant sequence for transition zone (TZ). We also used the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version (PI-RADS) v2.1 to evaluate each lesion. For each scoring, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC). Results: The calculated AUC for three bpMRI-based scorings were 83.2% (95% CI 78.8%-87.6%), 85.0% (95% CI 80.8%-89.3%), 82.9% (95% CI 78.4%-87.5%), and 86.0% (95% CI 81.8%-90.1%), respectively. Scoring 2 exhibited significantly superior performance than scoring 1 ( Conclusion: All three bpMRI-based scorings demonstrated favorite diagnostic accuracy, and scoring 2 performed significantly better than the other two bpMRI-based scorings. Notably, scoring 2 was not significantly inferior to the full-sequence PI-RADS v2.1 in terms of sensitivity and specificity.
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.