ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
Diagnostic performance of multiple ultrasonic modalities for prostate cancer.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of Grayscale Ultrasound (GSU), Color Doppler Ultrasound/Power Doppler Ultrasound (CDU/PDU), Transrectal Real-Time Tissue Elastography (TRTE) and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PCa).
methodAll analyzed patients underwent GSU, CDU/PDU, TRTE and CEUS examinations before radical prostatectomy. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn, and the Areas Under the Curve (AUCs) were calculated for the four ultrasonic modalities alone and in combination. Binary logistic analysis was used to evaluate the predictive value of lesion features observed with the 4 modalities.
resultsThe results of the chi-square test showed that the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy rate of TRTE for diagnosing PCa were higher than those of CEUS (p-values were < 0.05 for all). The ROC curves analysis showed that the diagnostic performance of TRTE for PCa was better than that of CEUS (p = 0.046). Moreover, the diagnostic performance of the combination of four ultrasonic technologies (AUC = 0.873) was significantly better than that of any technology alone. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis showed that enhancement strength on CEUS, presence of a blue area on TRTE and total serum Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) level were independent predictors for prostate malignancy.
conclusionsThe diagnostic performance of TRTE was higher than that of CEUS. Early hyperenhancement on CEUS and stiffness on TRTE had high predictive value for the diagnosis of PCa. The combination of multiple ultrasonic modalities can significantly improve the positive diagnostic rate for PCa over that of a single ultrasonic mode.
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.