ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Multiplanar versus axial measurement of prostate lesion size: agreement and impact on PI-RADS v2.1 categorization and histopathologic correlation.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether measurement of prostate lesion size on sagittal or coronal imaging planes influences PI-RADS v2.1 categorization and histopathologic correlation compared with axial measurement.
methodsIn this single-center retrospective study, 261 prostate lesions categorized as PI-RADS 4 or 5 underwent subsequent targeted MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy or prostatectomy. Lesion size was measured as maximal axial diameter (MAD) and maximal coronal or sagittal diameter (MCSD). Lesions were subsequently categorized according to PI-RADS v2.1 using these measurements. The agreement between MAD and MCSD was assessed using a Bland-Altman analysis. Measurement reliability and interobserver agreement were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement in PI-RADS categorization for clinically significant prostate cancer.
resultBland-Altman analysis demonstrated minimal bias and strong agreement between MAD and MCSD measurements for the whole prostate (mean difference 0.28 mm; 95% limits of agreement - 2.62 to 3.19 mm), with similar results in both the peripheral and transition zones. Intraclass correlation analysis showed excellent reliability between measurements (ICC = 0.93). Agreement in PI-RADS categorization between MAD and MCSD was almost perfect (κ = 0.931). Reclassification from PI-RADS 4 to 5 occurred in 1.74% of lesions when using MCSD, and all reclassified lesions demonstrated clinically significant prostate cancer on histopathology.
conclusionMAD and MCSD measurements of prostate lesion size demonstrate excellent agreement and highly concordant PI-RADS categorization. Although reclassification is uncommon, evaluation of the sagittal or coronal planes may provide additional value for selected lesions with craniocaudal elongation, where the maximal tumor extent may not be fully represented on axial images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41922779What 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.