Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39809601›Full record

Trial reportAcademic radiology2025

Impact of Endorectal Coil Use on Extraprostatic Extension Detection in Prostate MRI: A Retrospective Monocentric Study.

Omer Tarik Esengur, Enis C Yilmaz, Benjamin D Simon, Stephanie A Harmon, David G Gelikman, Yue Lin, Mason J Belue, Maria J Merino, Sandeep Gurram, Bradford J Wood and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation StudyClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Academic radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Omer Tarik EsengurMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (O.T.E., E.C.Y., B.D.S., S.A.H., D.G.G., Y.L., M.J.B., P.L.C., B.T.).
Enis C YilmazMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (O.T.E., E.C.Y., B.D.S., S.A.H., D.G.G., Y.L., M.J.B., P.L.C., B.T.).
Benjamin D SimonMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (O.T.E., E.C.Y., B.D.S., S.A.H., D.G.G., Y.L., M.J.B., P.L.C., B.T.); Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, UK (B.D.S.).
Stephanie A HarmonMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (O.T.E., E.C.Y., B.D.S., S.A.H., D.G.G., Y.L., M.J.B., P.L.C., B.T.).
David G GelikmanMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (O.T.E., E.C.Y., B.D.S., S.A.H., D.G.G., Y.L., M.J.B., P.L.C., B.T.).
Yue LinMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (O.T.E., E.C.Y., B.D.S., S.A.H., D.G.G., Y.L., M.J.B., P.L.C., B.T.).
Mason J BelueMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (O.T.E., E.C.Y., B.D.S., S.A.H., D.G.G., Y.L., M.J.B., P.L.C., B.T.).
Maria J MerinoLaboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (M.J.M.).
Sandeep GurramUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (S.G., P.A.P.).
Bradford J WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (B.J.W.).
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (O.T.E., E.C.Y., B.D.S., S.A.H., D.G.G., Y.L., M.J.B., P.L.C., B.T.).
Peter A PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (S.G., P.A.P.).
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (O.T.E., E.C.Y., B.D.S., S.A.H., D.G.G., Y.L., M.J.B., P.L.C., B.T.). Electronic address: turkbeyi@mail.nih.gov.

Funding

Imaging, image guided biopsy and treatment of prostate cancerZIABC012062 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI TÜRKBEY, BARIS · 2021 to 2025
$1.3M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA BC012062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesAccurate preoperative mpMRI-based detection of extraprostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer (PCa) is critical for surgical planning and patient outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the impact of endorectal coil (ERC) use on the diagnostic performance of mpMRI in detecting EPE. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study with prospectively collected data included participants who underwent mpMRI and subsequent radical prostatectomy for PCa between 2007 and 2024. Participants were divided based on ERC use on mpMRI: MRI without ERC and with ERC. Surgical pathology reports were used to determine the patients with pathologic EPE on whole-mount histopathology. One radiologist evaluated mpMRI using an in-house (National Cancer Institute [NCI]) EPE grading system. Logistic regression (LR) analyses were conducted to identify significant predictors of pathologic EPE, including ERC use and NCI EPE grades.

results934 men (median age: 62 years [IQR = 57-67]) were included. For NCI EPE grade≥1, ERC MRI group (n = 612) had higher NPV (91% [320/353] vs. 83% [166/200], p = 0.01) and sensitivity (75% [101/134] vs. 62% [56/90], p = 0.04) compared to non-ERC group (n = 322). For NCI EPE grade = 3, ERC MRI group had higher NPV (83% [452/546] vs. 75% [221/294], p = 0.01) and accuracy (80% [492/612] vs. 74% [238/322], p = 0.03). In multivariable LR, higher NCI EPE grades were strong independent predictors of pathologic EPE, irrespective of ERC use (NCI EPE grade 2 with ERC: odds ratio [OR] = 2.01, p = 0.04; without ERC: OR = 5.63, p<0.001, NCI EPE grade 3 with ERC: OR = 4.53, p<0.001; without ERC: OR = 5.22, p = 0.002).

conclusionERC improves sensitivity, NPV, accuracy of EPE detection with mpMRI at different NCI EPE thresholds. NCI EPE grading system remains the stronger independent predictor of pathologic EPE regardless of ERC use.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm GradingProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRectumAgedHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessPatient Care PlanningPredictive Value of TestsPreoperative CareProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesEndorectal coilExtraprostatic extensionMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID39809601
PMCPMC12129692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.