Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
International Urology and Nephrology · November 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background: The Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) and Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET) scoring systems have been recently developed to improve detection of post-ablation recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, it is unknown how these two scoring systems compare in clinical practice. Methods: Patients who underwent focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) and had post-FT MRI and biopsy were identified from a prospective registry. Post-FT MRIs were reviewed by two radiologists blinded to biopsy results using the PI-FAB and TARGET systems with scores of 3 and ≥ 4, respectively considered positive for csPCa. csPCa recurrence was defined as ≥Gleason 3 + 4 on biopsy. Diagnostic performance metrics including sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV)/accuracy were calculated. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was generated using logistic regression and compared using DeLong's tests. Inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen's Kappa (κ). Results: 90 patients were eligible. Radiologist #1 showed PI-FAB sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy/AUC of 67%/82%/54%/89%/78%/74%, respectively; TARGET had values of 67%/79%/50%/88%/76%/73%, respectively. Radiologist #2 showed PI-FAB sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy/AUC of 62%/68%/42%/83%/66%/65%, respectively; TARGET 62%/68%/42%/83%/66%/66%. Logistic regression showed no difference in AUC for PI-FAB and TARGET (0.69;95%CI:0.59-0.79 vs 0.71;95%CI:0.62-0.80, p = 0.696). Inter-reader agreement was fair for PI-FAB (k = 0.352, p = 0.02) and moderate for TARGET (k = 0.445, p < 0.01). Conclusion: PI-FAB and TARGET scoring systems perform similarly in diagnostic performance, though inter-reader agreement is limited. Clinical parameters may be needed to fully assess csPCa recurrence after focal therapy.