ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Fast prostate MRI vs. conventional multiparametric prostate MRI: comparison and outcomes.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the overall concordance of a fast prostate MRI (fpMRI) protocol versus conventional multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) protocol.
methodsThis is an IRB approved retrospective review of 100 men between the ages of 50 and 80 who underwent mpMRI exams from January 2016 to May 2021. The mpMRI exams selected came from three categories: Group A (PI-RADS 1-2); Group B (PI-RADS 3); and Group C (PI-RADS 4-5). Two masked radiologists independently reviewed and assigned each fpMRI case the highest possible lesion PI-RADS score. The collected fpMRI scores were then compared to the mpMRI results, PSA values, and available targeted biopsy outcomes.
resultsThe concordance rates between the two fpMRI reviewers and mpMRI for the individually assessed groups (A, B, C) were 0.69 (95% CI,0.62 to 0.75). The PPV of groups B or C combined for GS ≥ 7 for mpMRI, R1 fpMRI, and R2 fpMRI was 62% (40/64; 95% CI,0.50 to 0.74), 67% (40/60; 95% CI,0.53 to 0.78), and 72% (39/54; 95% CI,0.58 to 0.84), respectively. The negative predictive value (NPV) of group B or C combined for GS ≥ 7 on mpMRI, R1 fpMRI, and R2 fpMRI was 100% (3/3; 95% CI,29 to 100%), 100% (7/7; 95% CI,59 to 100%), and 92% (12/13; 95% CI,64 to 100%), respectively.
conclusionsThe concordance rates, PPV and NPV between the mpMRI and fpMRI results for groups B and C were moderately high, moderately high, and very high, respectively. This pilot study suggests that a larger prospective study might be beneficial to help establish fpMRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40192812What 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.