ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs. multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Novel Voxel-Based MRI Risk Score LADCTCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most widely used approach for prostate MRI. While biparametric MRI (BP-MRI) involves shorter acquisition time and decreased cost, its diagnostic accuracy compared to multiparametric MRI (MP-MRI) is not well known. We aim to compare the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with BP-MRI and MP-MRI prior to biopsy.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed men who underwent BP-MRI or MP-MRI between January 2019 and December 2022, interpreted by a single expert radiologist. All patients underwent systematic and targeted transperineal prostate biopsy. Diagnostic performance was compared using Receiver operating characteristic curves, test performance parameters, and assessed net benefit with decision curve analysis, using biopsy with Grade Group ≥ 2 disease as the reference standard.
resultsAmong 310 patients (192 MP-MRI, 118 BP-MRI), suspicious lesions were identified in 63% vs. 47%, respectively. Area under the curve values were 0.81 for MP-MRI and 0.88 for BP-MRI (p = 0.4). At PI-RADS ≥ 4, BP-MRI sensitivity/specificity were 71%/79% vs. 79%/55% for MP-MRI. At PI-RADS ≥ 3, sensitivities were similar but specificities were lower for both. Decision curve analysis showed similar net benefit for both protocols across clinically relevant thresholds. In multivariable analysis adjusting for age and PI-RADS, MRI type was not associated with clinically significant cancer detection (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.53-1.45).
conclusionsBiparametric and multiparametric MRI protocols demonstrate comparable accuracy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, suggesting that dynamic contrast enhancement offers limited clinical benefit. Biparametric MRI should be considered the standard for pre-biopsy imaging in patients with suspected prostate cancer.
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.