ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025
Prognostic value of MR visibility/invisibility in men on Active Surveillance.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Best of 2025 in prostate cancer and prostatic diseases.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to determine, in a prospective long term cohort, the prognostic value of negative MR imaging with respect to upgrading and need for intervention in men on AS.
methodA long term prospective single centre study of men on Active surveillance with MR imaging. Primary outcome was upgrading on biopsy and rate of intervention. After incorporation of MRI into the AS protocol in 2013, men with negative imaging underwent systematic biopsy only for cause.
resultsFive hundred and thirty AS patients had one or more MRI, with median follow-up of 8.5 years. At baseline, 39 patients (7.4%) had negative MRIs 161 (30%) equivocal, and 330 (62%) had a positive MRI. Two hundred and twenty-nine patients were upgraded; 5% with invisible lesions, 34% with PiRADS 3, and 52% with PiRADS 4-5. Two hundred and twenty-nine (43%) of the 530 men were eventually treated. No patient with a negative PiRADS was treated, vs 36% with PiRADS 3 and 52% with PiRADS 4-5 (p < 0.001). In 331 men with serial MRIs, upgrading occurred in 46% of men with stable or improved MRI, and 57% in those with MRI progression. In the 70 patients whose MRI improved from PiRADS 4-5 to 3, 46% were upgraded. No patients who transitioned from PiRADS 3-5 to 1-2 were upgraded. Time to grade progression was highly inversely correlated with PIRADS score.
conclusionMRI invisible cancers demonstrated dramatically reduced rates of progression and no patient required intervention. Despite the absence of routine biopsies in the MR negative group, none of these patients progressed over time to GG ≥ 3 or metastatic disease. This suggests that, in men on active surveillance, image guided management, restricting biopsies to targeted biopsies of regions of interest, is sufficient to identify clinically significant cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39824930What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.