↓ Skip to main content

Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Recommendations—A Report of a European School of Oncology Task Force

Overview of attention for article published in European Urology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
63 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
193 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Recommendations—A Report of a European School of Oncology Task Force
Published in
European Urology, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline M. Moore, Francesco Giganti, Peter Albertsen, Clare Allen, Chris Bangma, Alberto Briganti, Peter Carroll, Masoom Haider, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Alex Kirkham, Laurence Klotz, Adil Ouzzane, Anwar R. Padhani, Valeria Panebianco, Peter Pinto, Philippe Puech, Antti Rannikko, Raphaele Renard-Penna, Karim Touijer, Baris Turkbey, Heinrik van Poppel, Riccardo Valdagni, Jochen Walz, Ivo Schoots

Abstract

Published data on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during follow-up of men on active surveillance are lacking. Current guidelines for prostate MRI reporting concentrate on prostate cancer (PCa) detection and staging. A standardised approach to prostate MRI reporting for active surveillance will facilitate the robust collection of evidence in this newly developing area. To develop preliminary recommendations for reporting of individual MRI studies in men on active surveillance and for researchers reporting the outcomes of cohorts of men having MRI on active surveillance. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. Experts in urology, radiology, and radiation oncology developed a set of 394 statements relevant to prostate MRI reporting in men on active surveillance for PCa. Each statement was scored for agreement on a 9-point scale by each panellist prior to a panel meeting. Each statement was discussed and rescored at the meeting. Measures of agreement and consensus were calculated for each statement. The most important statements, derived from both group discussion and scores of agreement and consensus, were used to create the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) checklist and case report form. Key recommendations include reporting the index lesion size using absolute values at baseline and at each subsequent MRI. Radiologists should assess the likelihood of true change over time (ie, change in size or change in lesion characteristics on one or more sequences) on a 1-5 scale. A checklist of items for reporting a cohort of men on active surveillance was developed. These items were developed based on expert consensus in many areas in which data are lacking, and they are expected to develop and change as evidence is accrued. The PRECISE recommendations are designed to facilitate the development of a robust evidence database for documenting changes in prostate MRI findings over time of men on active surveillance. If used, they will facilitate data collection to distinguish measurement error and natural variability in MRI appearances from true radiologic progression. Few published reports are available on how to use and interpret magnetic resonance imaging for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. The PRECISE panel recommends that data should be collected in a standardised manner so that natural variation in the appearance and measurement of cancer over time can be distinguished from changes indicating significant tumour progression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 203 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 26 13%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Student > Master 14 7%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 47 23%
Unknown 63 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 1%
Psychology 3 1%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 78 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 29 June 2022.
All research outputs
#713,796
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from European Urology
#329
of 6,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,017
of 368,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Urology
#7
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 368,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.