ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
The role of multiparametric MRI-based VI-RADS in predicting the need for a second TURB.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What's next for VI-RADS? Updates and future perspectives from the ACR VI-RADS steering committee.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo prospectively evaluate the value of Vesical Imaging Reporting and Data System (VI‑RADS) prior to initial transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) in predicting residual tumor at second TURB and subsequent prognosis of patients.
methodsWe enrolled suspected bladder cancer patients and scheduled multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of bladder for them before initial TURB. Second TURB were conducted based on initial resection reports, with comparisons made between patients with VI-RADS scores <3 and ≥3 regarding residual tumor rate, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Predictive efficacy of VI-RADS was assessed using Chi-square tests, logistic and Cox regression analyses, ROC curves, and Kaplan-Meier analyses.
resultsA total of 108 patients were included, and residual tumors were detected in 25.0% (27/108) of them at second TURB, with a significant difference between patients with VI-RADS score <3 and ≥3 (8/81 vs. 19/27, p <0.001). VI-RADS ≥3 demonstrated a sensitivity of 70.4%, specificity of 90.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 70.4%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 90.1%. Stratified analysis showed VI-RADS achieved a NPV of 95.2% for disease-free Ta patients, while 84.6% for T1 patients. After a median follow-up of 30 months for the 92 patients, 24 experienced tumor recurrence. VI-RADS ≥3 was found to be an independent predictor of tumor recurrence (HR = 4.297, p = 0.003).
conclusionsVI-RADS ≥3 is associated with higher residual tumor rate at second TURB and higher recurrence risk. It might be an option for omitting second TURB when VI-RADS is <3, especially for Ta patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40325235What 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.