Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Sathianathen, Niranjan J., Omer, Altan, Harriss, Eli, Davies, Lucy, Kasivisvanathan, Veeru, Punwani, Shonit, Moore, Caroline M., Kastner, Christof, Barrett, Tristan, Van Den Bergh, Roderick CN, Eddy, Ben A., Gleeson, Fergus, Macpherson, Ruth, Bryant, Richard J., Catto, James W.F., Murphy, Declan G., Hamdy, Freddie C., Ahmed, Hashim U., Lamb, Alastair D.·2020·European Urology

Abstract

CONTEXT Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasingly used in prostate cancer diagnosis. The reported negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI is used by some clinicians to aid in decision making about whether or not to proceed to biopsy. OBJECTIVE We aim to perform a contemporary systematic review that reflects the latest literature on optimal mpMRI techniques and scoring systems to update the NPV of mpMRI for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We conducted a systematic literature search and included studies from 2016 to September 4, 2019, which assessed the NPV of mpMRI for csPCa, using biopsy or clinical follow-up as the reference standard. To ensure that studies included in this analysis reflect contemporary practice, we only included studies in which mpMRI findings were interpreted according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) or similar Likert grading system. We define negative mpMRI as either (1) PIRADS/Likert 1-2 or (2) PIRADS/Likert 1-3; csPCa was defined as either (1) Gleason grade group ≥2 or (2) Gleason grade group ≥3. We calculated NPV separately for each combination of negative mpMRI and csPCa. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 42 studies with 7321 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Using definition (1) for negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV for biopsy-naïve men was 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.1-93.1%). When defining csPCa using definition (2), the NPV for csPCa was 97.1% (95% CI 94.9-98.7%). Calculation of the pooled NPV using definition (2) for negative mpMRI and definition (1) for csPCa yielded the following: 86.8% (95% CI 80.1-92.4%). Using definition (2) for both negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV from two studies was 96.1% (95% CI 93.4-98.2%). CONCLUSIONS Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is generally an accurate test for ruling out csPCa. However, we observed heterogeneity in the NPV estimates, and local institutional data should form the basis of decision making if available. PATIENT SUMMARY The negative predictive values should assist in decision making for clinicians considering not proceeding to biopsy in men with elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reported as negative (or equivocal) on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert scoring. Some 7-10% of men, depending on the setting, will miss a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer if they do not proceed to biopsy. Given the institutional variation in results, it is of upmost importance to base decision making on local data if available.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Metadata

Authors
Sathianathen, N. J., Omer, A., Harriss, E., Davies, L., Kasivisvanathan, V., Punwani, S., Moore, C. M., Kastner, C., Barrett, T., Van Den Bergh, R. C., Eddy, B. A., Gleeson, F., Macpherson, R., Bryant, R. J., Catto, J. W. F., Murphy, D. G., Hamdy, F. C., Ahmed, H. U., & Lamb, A. D.
Venue
European Urology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
78
Issue
3
Pages
402-414
ISSN
0302-2838 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3027017122
Cited by
346
References
14
FWCI
9.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048
The paper
Sathianathen, N. J., Omer, A., Harriss, E., Davies, L., Kasivisvanathan, V., Punwani, S., Moore, C. M., Kastner, C., Barrett, T., Van Den Bergh, R. C., Eddy, B. A., Gleeson, F., Macpherson, R., Bryant, R. J., Catto, J. W. F., Murphy, D. G., Hamdy, F. C., Ahmed, H. U., & Lamb, A. D. (2020). Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. European Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.