Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35368407›Full record

ArticleActa radiologica open2022

Do the variations in ROI placement technique have influence for prostate ADC measurements?

Yoshiko Ueno, Tsutomu Tamada, Keitaro Sofue, Yasuyo Urase, Nobuyuki Hinata, Masato Fujisawa, Takamichi Murakami

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta radiologica open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Recommendations for improved reproducibility of ADC derivation on behalf of the Elekta MRI-linac consortium image analysis working group.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yoshiko UenoDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.
Tsutomu TamadaDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2521-9570
Keitaro SofueDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.
Yasuyo UraseDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.
Nobuyuki HinataDepartment of Urology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.
Masato FujisawaDepartment of Urology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.
Takamichi MurakamiDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prostate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values calculated from diffusion-weighted imaging have been used for evaluating prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. However, the way of measuring ADC values has varied depending on the study. Purpose: To investigate inter- and intra-reader variability and diagnostic performance of three kinds of shaped 2D regions of interests (ROIs) for tumor ADC measurements in PCa. Material and Methods: Seventy-four patients with PCa undergoing 3-T MRI before surgery were included. Histologic findings from radical prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to define each patient's dominant tumor. Three readers independently measured the tumor ADCs using three different ROI methods: freehand, large-circle, and small-circles ROIs. Readers repeated measurements after 3 weeks. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to evaluate the inter- and intra-reader variability. Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis was used for assessment of tumor aggressiveness for PCa. Results: For intra-reader and inter-reader variability, the mean coefficient of repeatability for freehand ROIs, large-circle ROIs, and small-circles ROIs were as follows: 13.7%, 12.4%, and 11.5%; 9.4%, 9.7%, and 9.5%. For differentiating Gleason score (GS) = 3 + 3 from GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors, the area under the curves were 0.90 for freehand ROIs, 0.89 for large-circle ROIs, and 0.94 small-circles ROIs ( Conclusion: The variations in ROI method did not have a major influence on intra-reader or inter-reader reproducibility or diagnostic performance for prostate ADC measurements.

Indexed as

apparent diffusion coefficientdiffusion-weighted imagingmagnetic resonance imagingProstate neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID35368407
PMCPMC8973079

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.