ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2025
Improving risk stratification of PI-RADS 3 + 1 lesions of the peripheral zone: expert lexicon of terms, multi-reader performance and contribution of artificial intelligence.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to PI-RADS v2.1, peripheral PI-RADS 3 lesions are upgraded to PI-RADS 4 if dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is positive (3+1 lesions), however those lesions are radiologically challenging. We aimed to define criteria by expert consensus and test applicability by other radiologists for sPC prediction of PI-RADS 3+1 lesions and determine their value in integrated regression models.
methodsFrom consecutive 3 Tesla MR examinations performed between 08/2016 to 12/2018 we identified 85 MRI examinations from 83 patients with a total of 94 PI-RADS 3+1 lesions in the official clinical report. Lesions were retrospectively assessed by expert consensus with construction of a newly devised feature catalogue which was utilized subsequently by two additional radiologists specialized in prostate MRI for independent lesion assessment. With reference to extended fused targeted and systematic TRUS/MRI-biopsy histopathological correlation, relevant catalogue features were identified by univariate analysis and put into context to typically available clinical features and automated AI image assessment utilizing lasso-penalized logistic regression models, also focusing on the contribution of DCE imaging (feature-based, bi- and multiparametric AI-enhanced and solely bi- and multiparametric AI-driven).
resultsThe feature catalog enabled image-based lesional risk stratification for all readers. Expert consensus provided 3 significant features in univariate analysis (adj. p-value <0.05; most relevant feature T2w configuration: "irregular/microlobulated/spiculated", OR 9.0 (95%CI 2.3-44.3); adj. p-value: 0.016). These remained after lasso penalized regression based feature reduction, while the only selected clinical feature was prostate volume (OR<1), enabling nomogram construction. While DCE-derived consensus features did not enhance model performance (bootstrapped AUC), there was a trend for increased performance by including multiparametric AI, but not biparametric AI into models, both for combined and AI-only models.
conclusionsPI-RADS 3+1 lesions can be risk-stratified using lexicon terms and a key feature nomogram. AI potentially benefits more from DCE imaging than experienced prostate radiologists. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.