A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of Computed Diffusion-Weighted Imaging b2000 and Acquired Diffusion-Weighted Imaging b2000 for Detection of Prostate Cancer. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: To compare the sensitivity of tumor detection and inter-observer agreement between acquired diffusion-weighted imaging (aDWI) b2000 and computed DWI (cDWI) b2000 in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials And Methods: Eighty-eight patients diagnosed with PCa by radical prostatectomy and having undergone pre-operative 3 Tesla-MRI, including DWI (b, 0, 100, 1000, 2000 s/mm), were included in the study. cDWI b2000 was obtained from aDWI b0, b100, and b1000. Two independent reviewers performed a review of the aDWI b2000 and cDWI b2000 images in random order at 4-week intervals. A region of interest was drawn for the largest tumor on each dataset, and a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score based on PI-RADS v2.1 was recorded. Histologic topographic maps served as the reference standard.

Results: The study population's Gleason scores were 6 ( = 16), 7 ( = 53), 8 ( = 9), and 9 ( = 10). According to the reviewers, the sensitivities of cDWI b2000 and aDWI b2000 showed no significant differences (for reviewer 1, both 94% [83/88]; for reviewer 2, both 90% [79/88]; = 1.000, respectively). The kappa values of cDWI b2000 and aDWI b2000 for the PI-RADS score were 0.422 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.240-0.603) and 0.495 (95% CI, 0.308-0.683), respectively.

Conclusion: cDWI b2000 showed comparable sensitivity with aDWI b2000, in addition to sustained moderate inter-observer agreement, in the detection of PCa.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9574295PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2022.0004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cdwi b2000
24
adwi b2000
20
b2000
13
diffusion-weighted imaging
12
b2000 adwi
12
imaging b2000
8
acquired diffusion-weighted
8
prostate cancer
8
inter-observer agreement
8
pi-rads score
8

Similar Publications