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 OpenAlexaff
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

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology Open ScienceSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207