ArticleCancers2025
The Use of PI-FAB Score in Evaluating mpMRI After Focal Ablation of Prostate Cancer: Is It Reliable? Inter-Reader Agreement in a Tertiary Care Referral University Hospital.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Prostate cancer: Value of the PI-FAB score and volume-adjusted PSA density in recurrence assessment after HIFU.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance and Inter-Reader Agreement of Prostate Imaging After Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) on Post-Focal Therapy (FT) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: State of the Art, Physical Principles, Potentials, and Challenges.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background/purposeto assess the inter-reader agreement of the PIFAB (Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation) score, a new MRI-based standardized system for evaluating post-focal therapy prostate mpMRI, among radiologists in a single large cohort of patients treated with focal therapy (HIFU) in a tertiary care referral University Hospital.
methodsIn total, 68 consecutive patients who underwent HIFU were included in this single-center retrospective observational study. A total of 109 post-HIFU follow-up mpMRIs were evaluated by three radiologists with varying levels of experience (12, 8, and 3 years, respectively). All patients underwent their first follow-up mpMRI at 6 months post-treatment, with 30 patients receiving additional evaluations at 18 months and 11 at 30 months.
resultsThe patients had a mean age of 70.6 ± 8.31 years, a mean pre-treatment PSA (prostate-specific antigen) of 7.85 ± 1.21 ng/mL, and a mean post-treatment PSA of 4.64 ± 4.2 ng/mL. The inter-reader agreement for PI-FAB among the three radiologists showed a Gwet's AC2 value of 0.941 (95% confidence interval: 0.904-0.978,
conclusionsOur study demonstrates excellent inter-reader agreement among radiologists with varying levels of experience, confirming that the PI-FAB score is highly reproducible when evaluating post-treatment mpMRI scans. The low rate of PI-FAB 2 and PI-FAB 3 lesions observed at the first follow-up, coupled with the absence of significant recurrence in subsequent evaluations, suggests that HIFU is a reliable technique for prostate cancer treatment in selected patients.
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.