MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311531804 · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.015

Assessing the Role of High-resolution Microultrasound Among Naïve Patients with Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and a Persistently High Suspicion of Prostate Cancer

2022· article· en· W4311531804 on OpenAlex
Pier Paolo Avolio, Giovanni Lughezzani, Vittorio Fasulo, Davide Maffei, Rafael Sánchez-Salas, Marco Paciotti, Cesare Saitta, Fabio De Carne, Alberto Saita, Rodolfo Hurle, Massimo Lazzeri, Giorgio Guazzoni, Nicolò Maria Buffi, Paolo Casale

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Open Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineCancerNuclear magnetic resonanceRadiologyInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is an invaluable diagnostic tool in the decision-making for prostate biopsies (PBx). However, a non-negligible proportion of patients with negative MRI (nMRI) may still harbour prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To assess whether microultrasound (micro-US) can help in substratifying the presence of PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa; ie, any Gleason score ≥7 PCa) in patients with nMRI despite a persistently high clinical suspicion of PCa. Design setting and participants: A total of 125 biopsy-naïve patients who underwent micro-US-guided PBx with the ExactVu system for a persistently high suspicion of PCa despite nMRI were prospectively enrolled. Intervention: The Prostate Risk Identification using micro-US (PRI-MUS) protocol was used to identify suspicious areas; PBx included targeted sampling of PRI-MUS ≥3 areas and systematic sampling. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was the assessment of micro-US diagnostic accuracy in detecting csPCa. Secondary endpoints included determining the proportion of patients with nMRI who may avoid PBx after micro-US or transrectal US, presence of cribriform and intraductal patterns on biopsy core examination, predictors of csPCa in patients presenting with nMRI, and comparing micro-US-targeted and systematic PBx in identifying csPCa. Results and limitations: Considering csPCa detection rate, micro-US showed optimal sensitivity and negative predictive value (respectively, 97.1% and 96.4%), while specificity and positive predictive value were 29.7% and 34.0%, respectively. Twenty-eight (22.4%) patients with a negative micro-US examination could have avoided PBx with one (2.9%) missed csPCa. Cribriform and intraductal patterns were found in 14 (41.2%) and four (11.8%) of csPCa patients, respectively. In multivariable logistic regression models, positive micro-US, age, digital rectal examination, and prostate-specific antigen density ≥0.15 emerged as independent predictors of PCa. Targeted and systematic sampling identified 33 (97.1%) and 26 (76.5%) csPCa cases, respectively. The main limitation of the current study is represented by its retrospective single-centre nature on an operator-dependent technology. Conclusions: Micro-US represents a valuable tool to rule out the presence of csPCa among patients with a persistent clinical suspicion despite nMRI. Patient summary: According to our results, microultrasound (micro-US) may represent an effective tool for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging (nMRI), providing high sensitivity and negative predictive value. Further randomised studies are needed to confirm the potential role of micro-US in the diagnostic pathway of patients with a persistent suspicion of prostate cancer despite nMRI.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it