| Title |
Pitfalls in Interpreting mp-MRI of the Prostate: A Pictorial Review with Pathologic Correlation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-015-0426-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
V. Panebianco, F. Barchetti, J. Barentsz, A. Ciardi, F. Cornud, J. Futterer, G. Villeirs |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this pictorial review is to present a wide spectrum of prostate multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) pitfalls that may occur in clinical practice, with radiological and pathological correlation. All examinations were performed according to ESUR Guidelines protocols. mp-MRI imaging of the prostate often leads to interpreting doubts and misdiagnosis due to the many interpretative pitfalls that a tissue, whether healthy or treated, may cause. These "false-positive" findings may occur in each stage of the disease history, from the primary diagnosis and staging, to the post-treatment stage, and whether they are caused by the tissue itself or are iatrogenic, their recognition is critical for proper treatment and management. Knowledge of these known pitfalls and their interpretation in the anatomical-radiological context can help radiologists avoid misdiagnosis and consequently mistreatment. • Some physiological changes in the peripheral and central zone may simulate prostate cancer. • Technical errors, such as mispositioned endorectal coils, can affect the mp-MRI interpretation. • Physiological changes post-treatment can simulate recurrence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 129 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 19% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 29 | 22% |
| Unknown | 17 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 80 | 61% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 31 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2019.
All research outputs
#14,758,607
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#601
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,141
of 277,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,473 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.