ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2026
Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance and Inter-Reader Agreement of Prostate Imaging After Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) on Post-Focal Therapy (FT) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer induces architectural changes that complicate post-treatment multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) surveillance. The Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) system was developed to standardize the evaluation of in-field recurrence on mpMRI. This study assessed the diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement of PI-FAB following focal cryoablation for localized prostate cancer. In this retrospective study (October 2019 to January 2024), 85 patients (140 lesion sites) underwent post-FT mpMRI and biopsy. Two radiologists (11 and 4 years of experience) independently scored mpMRIs using the three-point PI-FAB scale. Metrics included sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy. Inter-reader agreement was measured via quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa (κ). Reader 1 (more experienced) demonstrated 83.9% sensitivity, 84.4% specificity, 60.5% PPV, and 94.8% NPV. Reader 2 demonstrated 71.4% sensitivity, 87.5% specificity, 58.8% PPV, and 92.5% NPV. Both achieved 84.3% accuracy. Inter-reader agreement was moderate (κ = 0.60). PI-FAB provides good diagnostic performance for detecting in-field recurrence after cryoablation. While reader experience may impact sensitivity, moderate agreement across experience levels supports PI-FAB's validity and potential clinical utility in standardizing post-FT surveillance.
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.