ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
A multi-center study: development and validation of a BpMRI focused model in transition zone PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions to detect clinically significant prostate cancer.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a biparametric magnetic resonance imaging(BpMRI) focused model for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer(csPCa)( Gleason score ≥ 7) in TZ PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions, compared to the Risk-based model (PI-RADS ≥ 3 and PSA density (PSAD) ≥ 0.15 ng/ml/cm³).
methodsA multi-center, retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on consecutive patients with PI-RADS 3 or 4 and eligible biopsy result. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of csPCa, followed by the areas under the curve(AUC) and decision curve analysis (DCA) comparisons between the Risk-based and BpMRI focused models, with external validation.
resultsA total of 121 patients with 231 lesions in the development cohort(cohort 1) and 45 patients with 81 lesions the external validation cohort(cohort 2) were included between January 2020 and December 2024. The AUCs of the BpMRI-focused model were higher than those of the risk-based model in both the development cohort (0.71 [95% CI: 0.62-0.81] vs. 0.83 [95% CI: 0.74-0.92], p < 0.05) and the external validation cohort (0.75 [95% CI: 0.63-0.87] vs. 0.87 [95% CI: 0.79-0.95], p < 0.05). Furthermore, the BpMRI Focused Model significantly reduced the number of false positives for clinically significant prostate cancer compared to the Risk-Based Model [54 (23%) vs. 142 (61%), p < 0.002], while maintaining a cancer detection rate comparable to the PI-RADS ≥ 3 strategy (both p > 0.05). Additionally, the BpMRI Focused Model achieved a higher biopsy avoidance rate for csPCa [15 (6%)] compared to the Risk-Based Model [10 (4%)], though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.30).
conclusionIn clinical decision-making, lesions in the TZ with PI-RADS 3 or 4 can be incorporated into the BpMRI focused model to reduce unnecessary biopsies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40317358What 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.