Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40088286›Full record

Observational studyEuropean radiology2025

On-table monitoring of prostate MRI could enable tailored utilisation of gadolinium contrast.

Tom Syer, Bruno Carmo, Nimalam Sanmugalingam, Brooke Lawson, Wellington Chishaya, Christopher Shepherd, Tristan Barrett, Iztok Caglic

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

8 authors.

Tom SyerDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Bruno CarmoDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Nimalam SanmugalingamDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Brooke LawsonDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Wellington ChishayaDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Christopher ShepherdDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Tristan BarrettDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. tb507@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1180-1474
Iztok CaglicDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the impact of on-table monitoring vs standard-of-care multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for the utilisation of gadolinium contrast use in prostate MRI. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective observation study of prospectively acquired data was conducted at a single institution over an 18-month period. A cohort of patients undergoing MRI for suspected prostate cancer (PCa) underwent on-table monitoring where their T2 and DWI images were reviewed by a supervising radiologist during the scan to decide whether to acquire dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequences. MRI scans were reported using PI-RADS v2.1, patients were followed up with biopsy for at least 12 months. The rate of gadolinium administration, biopsy rates, and diagnostic accuracy were compared to that of a standard-of-care control group undergoing mpMRI during the same period using propensity score matching. Estimates of cost savings were also calculated.

results1410 patients were identified and after propensity score matching 598 patients were analysed, with 178 undergoing on-table monitoring. Seventy-five and eight tenths (135/178) of patients did not receive gadolinium. Contrast was used mainly for indeterminate lesions (27/43) and significant artefacts on bpMRI (14/43). When comparing the monitored cohort to a non-monitored control group, there was a comparable number of biopsies performed (52.2% vs 49.5%, p = 0.54), PI-RADS 3/5 scoring rates (10.1% vs 7.4%, p = 0.27), sensitivity (98.3% vs 99.2%, p = 0.56), and specificity (63.9% vs 70.7%, p = 0.18) for detection of clinically-significant PCa. When acquired, DCE was deemed helpful in 67.4% (29/43) of cases and improved both PI-QUALv2 and reader confidence scores. There was an estimated saving of £56,677 over the 18-month study.

conclusionOn-table monitoring significantly reduced the need for gadolinium contrast without compromising diagnostic accuracy and biopsy rates. KEY POINTS: Question Default use of gadolinium contrast in prostate MRI is not always of clinical benefit and has associated side effects and healthcare costs. Findings On-table monitoring avoided the use of gadolinium in 75.8% of patients, reducing associated costs whilst maintaining clinically significant cancer detection, and diagnostic accuracy and improving reader confidence. Clinical relevance On-table monitoring offers personalised patient protocolling with a significant reduction in the use of gadolinium and its associated side effects and costs, potentially maximising the advantages of both multiparametric and biparametric prostate MRI.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaGadoliniumMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaGadoliniumContrast mediaMagnetic resonance imagingProstatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID40088286
PMCPMC12350576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.