Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41992373›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2026

Systematic effects of patient factors and scanner/protocol factors on a Restriction Spectrum Imaging (RSI) quantitative MRI biomarker for prostate cancer.

Deondre D Do, Mariluz Rojo Domingo, Christopher C Conlin, Ian Matthews, Karoline Kallis, Madison T Baxter, Courtney Ollison, Yuze Song, George Xu, Allison Y Zhong and 34 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

44 authors.

Deondre D DoDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Mariluz Rojo DomingoDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Christopher C ConlinDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Ian MatthewsDepartment of Radiation Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Karoline KallisDepartment of Radiation Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Madison T BaxterDepartment of Radiation Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Courtney OllisonDepartment of Radiation Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Yuze SongDepartment of Radiation Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
George XuDepartment of Radiation Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Allison Y ZhongDepartment of Radiation Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Aditya BagrodiaDepartment of Urology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Tristan BarrettDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew CooperbergDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Felix FengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Michael E HahnDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Mukesh HarisinghaniDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Gary M HollenbergDepartment of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Juan Javier-DeslogesDepartment of Urology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Sophia C KamranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Christopher J KaneDepartment of Urology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Dimitri KesslerDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Joshua KupermanDepartment of Radiation Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Kang-Lung LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jonathan LevineDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Michael A LissDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Daniel J A MargolisDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Paul M MurphyDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Nabih NakrourDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Michael A OhligerDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Thomas OsinskiDepartment of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Anthony James PamatmatDepartment of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Isabella R PompaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Rebecca Rakow-PennerDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Jacob L RobertsDepartment of Urology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Karan SanthoshDepartment of Computer Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Ahmed S ShabaikDepartment of Pathology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
David SongDepartment of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Clare M TempanyDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Shaun TrecartenDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Natasha WehrliDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Eric P WeinbergDepartment of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Sean WoolenDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Anders M DaleDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Tyler M SeibertDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. tseibert@health.ucsd.edu.

Funding

Validation, Calibration, and Translation of Restriction Spectrum Imaging Signal Maps to enhance MRI diagnostic capabilities in Prostate CancerR01CA279667 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI Michael Andre Liss, Nathan Scott White · 2023 to 2026
$2.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA279667NIH HHS NIH UL1TR000100Prostate Cancer Foundation 24CHAL05U.S. Department of Defense DOD/CDMRP PC220278
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While multiparametric MRI has revolutionized clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection, conventional apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps suffer from a monoexponential model that conflate the various forms of diffusion in the tissue, leading to poor microstructural specificity and substantial inter-scanner variability. Restriction Spectrum Imaging (RSI) addresses these limitations with a multi-compartment biophysical model that separates the diffusion signal into four compartments, providing a more specific quantitative imaging biomarker, the Restriction Spectrum Imaging restriction score (RSIrs). Although RSIrs has demonstrated promising detection performance for csPCa, patient- and acquisition-related factors may influence its measured values and performance. Our retrospective analysis included 1,890 men (median age 70) from seven centers between 2018 and 2024. Our primary objective was to characterize the quantitative technical robustness of RSIrs using linear modeling. We assessed how age, race, ethnicity, prostate volume, medication use, and MRI acquisition parameters influenced prostate maximum RSIrs (RSIrsmax) values. Secondary, we conducted a functional validation of RSIrs’ csPCa detection performance when accounting for any significant effects (if any). Non-csPCa patients in this analysis were (1) with confirmed benign or Grade Group 1 findings on biopsy or (2) with a non-suspicious mpMRI (PI-RADS 1 or 2) and a prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) ≤ 0.15. Results revealed modest effects from age (1.8/year increase), prostate volume (-0.83/mL decrease), and acquisition methods (varying between − 63.14 to + 56.23). While these acquisition- and patient-level variations partially overlapped with change in RSIrsmax due to Grade Group 2 csPCa, these variations were secondary to the primary signal variation due to csPCa. Adjusting for them did not improve csPCa detection performance (p > 0.05). AUC of RSIrsmax for patient-level csPCa detection was 0.77 [95% CI: 0.75–0.79] compared to 0.74 [0.72–0.76] after. RSIrs demonstrates robust csPCa detection performance regardless of modest signal variations from patient and acquisition factors, supporting its potential as a generalizable quantitative imaging biomarker for csPCa.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedBiomarkers, TumorDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorApparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI)Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS)Restriction spectrum imaging (RSI)

Identifiers

PMID41992373
PMCPMC13202994

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.