Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Increasing use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has come with heterogeneity in image quality. The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score is under scrutiny to assess its usefulness in predicting clinical outcomes.
Objective: To compare upstaging of localized disease on mpMRI (mrT2) to locally invasive disease in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens (≥pT3a) in relation to PI-QUAL.
Design Setting And Participants: Patients treated with RP between 2015 and 2020 who underwent 1.5-3-T mpMRI within 6 mo before surgery and had systematic and mpMRI-US targeted biopsies were included. mpMRI scans were retrospectively assigned a PI-QUAL score, and prospectively acquired Prostate Imaging-Recording and Data System (PI-RADS) scores (version 2.0 or 2.1) were used. PI-QUAL scores were categorized as nondiagnostic (PI-QUAL <3), sufficient (PI-QUAL 3), or optimal (PI-QUAL >3).
Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: We assessed the relationship between the PI-QUAL score and upstaging using multivariate logistic regression. mpMRI, clinical, and pathological findings were compared using χ tests and analysis of variance.
Results And Limitations: We identified 351 patients, of whom 40 (11.4%) had PI-QUAL <3, 57 (16.3%) had PI-QUAL 3, and 254 (72.3%) had PI-QUAL >3 scores. The distribution of PI-QUAL <3 (0-33.6%; < 0.001) and PI-QUAL >3 (37.3-100%; < 0.001) scores varied widely among centers. PI-QUAL ≥3 in comparison to PI-QUAL <3 was associated with a lower rate of upstaging (19% vs 35%; = 0.02), greater detection of mrT3a and mrT3b prostate cancer (17.0% vs 2.5%; = 0.016), a higher rate of PI-RADS 5 lesions (47% vs 27.5%; = 0.002), a higher number of suspicious lesion (PI-RADS ≥3: 34.7% vs 15%; = 0.012), and higher detection rates for aggregated (50.7% vs 22.5%; = 0.001) and late (21.2% vs 0%; < 0.001) extraprostatic extension. On multivariate analysis, PI-QUAL<3 was associated with more frequent upstaging in the RP specimen (odds ratio 3.4; = 0.01).
Conclusions: In comparison to PI-QUAL ≥3, PI-QUAL <3 was significantly associated with a higher rate of upstaging from organ-confined disease on mpMRI to locally advanced disease on pathology, lower detection rates for PI-RADS 5 lesions and extraprostatic extension, and a lower number of suspicious lesions.
Patient Summary: Poor image quality for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate is associated with underestimation of the stage of prostate cancer.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9806708 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.013 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!