ArticleResearch square2026
Performance of PI-FAB and TARGET scoring systems in post focal therapy mpMRI surveillance.
Article in Research square, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) and Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET) scoring systems have been recently developed to improve detection of post-ablation recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, it is unknown how these two scoring systems compare in clinical practice. Methods: Patients who underwent focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) and had post-FT MRI and biopsy were identified from a prospective registry. Post-FT MRIs were reviewed by two radiologists blinded to biopsy results using the PI-FAB and TARGET systems with scores of 3 and ≥ 4, respectively considered positive for csPCa. csPCa recurrence was defined as ≥Gleason 3 + 4 on biopsy. Diagnostic performance metrics including sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV)/accuracy were calculated. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was generated using logistic regression and compared using DeLong's tests. Inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen's Kappa (κ). Results: 90 patients were eligible. Radiologist #1 showed PI-FAB sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy/AUC of 67%/82%/54%/89%/78%/74%, respectively; TARGET had values of 67%/79%/50%/88%/76%/73%, respectively. Radiologist #2 showed PI-FAB sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy/AUC of 62%/68%/42%/83%/66%/65%, respectively; TARGET 62%/68%/42%/83%/66%/66%. Logistic regression showed no difference in AUC for PI-FAB and TARGET (0.69;95%CI:0.59-0.79 vs 0.71;95%CI:0.62-0.80, p = 0.696). Inter-reader agreement was fair for PI-FAB (k = 0.352, p = 0.02) and moderate for TARGET (k = 0.445, p < 0.01). Conclusion: PI-FAB and TARGET scoring systems perform similarly in diagnostic performance, though inter-reader agreement is limited. Clinical parameters may be needed to fully assess csPCa recurrence after focal therapy.
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.