ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Prostate cancer: Value of the PI-FAB score and volume-adjusted PSA density in recurrence assessment after HIFU.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) score on multiparametric MRI in combination with volume-adjusted PSA density (vaPSA-D, derived from volumetrically assessed residual vital prostate tissue) for detecting in-field recurrence after HIFU ablation of localized prostate cancer. Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 117 men treated with HIFU underwent follow-up mpMRI and prostate biopsies at 6 (n = 99), 12 (n = 74), and 36 (n = 52) months. PI-FAB scores and vaPSA-D were assessed independently. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using biopsy-based histopathology as the reference standard. Results: PI-FAB demonstrated good diagnostic performance, particularly at 36 months (AUC 0.92). vaPSA-D showed increasing accuracy over time (AUC 0.64, 0.82, 0.84 at 6, 12, and 36 months; overall 0.78), outperforming PI-FAB at 12 months. Integrating vaPSA-D into PI-FAB subgroups significantly enhanced recurrence assessment: PI-FAB 1: sensitivity/specificity 75%/79% (threshold 0.14 ng/ml); PI-FAB ≥ 2: sensitivity/specificity 65%/85% (0.18 ng/ml); PI-FAB 3: sensitivity/specificity 67%/90% (0.18 ng/ml). Conclusion: Both PI-FAB and vaPSA-D provide reliable recurrence assessment after HIFU, with complementary strengths: PI-FAB performs best at later follow-up stages, whereas vaPSA-D maintains high sensitivity throughout. Their combined application offers the most accurate evaluation of post-HIFU recurrence and may help reduce unnecessary biopsies.
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.