ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Diagnostic performance of biparametric versus multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer: a noninferiority, confirmatory observer study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the noninferiority of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) compared to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa). Additionally, we compared diagnostic performance of bpMRI and mpMRI between expert and non-expert readers. Methods: A total of 319 men with abnormal serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were included in the study and underwent mpMRI examinations. Two expert readers and two non-expert readers sequentially assessed bpMRI and mpMRI using the PI-RADS scoring system, respectively. The noninferiority of bpMRI versus mpMRI was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) alongside the sensitivity and specificity at a threshold of PI-RADS 3. The diagnostic performance and inter-observer agreement of bpMRI and mpMRI were compared between expert and non-expert readers. Results: The prevalence of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was 55.5% (177/319), bpMRI showed noninferior diagnostic performance to mpMRI in AUROC (0.896 [95% CI, 0.879-0.943] vs 0.911 [95% CI, 0.861-0.931]; difference of -1.5% [95% CI, -3.1% to 0.1%], p < 0.001), alongside sensitivity (92.8 [95% CI, 90.1-95.6] vs 93.8 [95% CI, 91.2-96.6]; difference of -1.0% [95% CI, -2.0% to 0.0%], p < 0.001) and specificity (69.4 [95% CI, 63.6-73.9] vs 73.1[95% CI, 67.1-76.9]; difference of -3.5% [95% CI, -6.1% to -1.4%], p < 0.01) at a threshold of PI-RADS 3. In bpMRI interpretation, specificity showed significant differences among readers (P = 0.001); expert readers (32.7%, 209/638) and non-expert readers (37.0%, 236/638) showed significant differences in PI-RADS 3 (P = 0.01) and moderate agreement (0.64 [0.53-0.71]). Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of bpMRI in detecting csPCa was noninferior to that of mpMRI in a selected high-risk cohort of men with abnormal serum PSA. Limited additional benefits of DCE were observed for non-expert readers. Specialized system training of PI-RADS for non-experts or diagnosis under the supervision of expert radiologists might be better alternatives.
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.