ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2025
Ultra-fast biparametric MRI in prostate cancer assessment: Diagnostic performance and image quality compared to conventional multiparametric MRI.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2025. 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 use of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Ongoing and completed clinical trials on prostate cancer screening using MRI.European radiology · 2026Review
- Fibrosis of Periprostatic Adipose Tissue: A Potential Marker of Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness.Cancers · 2026Article
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
Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance and image quality of a deep-learning-assisted ultra-fast biparametric MRI (bpMRI) with the conventional multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Methods: This prospective single-center study enrolled 123 biopsy-naïve patients undergoing conventional mpMRI and additionally ultra-fast bpMRI at 3 T between 06/2023-02/2024. Two radiologists (R1: 4 years and R2: 3 years of experience) independently assigned PI-RADS scores (PI-RADS v2.1) and assessed image quality (mPI-QUAL score) in two blinded study readouts. Weighted Cohen's Kappa (κ) was calculated to evaluate inter-reader agreement. Diagnostic performance was analyzed using clinical data and histopathological results from clinically indicated biopsies. Results: Inter-reader agreement was good for both mpMRI (κ = 0.83) and ultra-fast bpMRI (κ = 0.87). Both readers demonstrated high sensitivity (≥94 %/≥91 %, R1/R2) and NPV (≥96 %/≥95 %) for csPCa detection using both protocols. The more experienced reader mostly showed notably higher specificity (≥77 %/≥53 %), PPV (≥62 %/≥45 %), and diagnostic accuracy (≥82 %/≥65 %) compared to the less experienced reader. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance of correctly identifying csPCa between both protocols (p > 0.05). The ultra-fast bpMRI protocol had significantly better image quality ratings (p < 0.001) and achieved a reduction in scan time of 80 % compared to conventional mpMRI. Conclusion: Deep-learning-assisted ultra-fast bpMRI protocols offer a promising alternative to conventional mpMRI for diagnosing csPCa in biopsy-naïve patients with comparable inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance at superior image quality. However, reader experience remains essential for diagnostic performance.
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.