Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40307530›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2026

Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI for detecting unconventional prostate cancer histology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Filippo Carletti, Martina Maggi, Tamas Fazekas, Pawel Rajwa, Rossella Nicoletti, Jonathan Olivier, Felix Preisser, Timo F W Soeterik, Francesco Giganti, Alberto Martini and 12 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Filippo CarlettiDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Martina MaggiDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Tamas FazekasDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Rossella NicolettiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Science, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Jonathan OlivierDepartment of Urology, CHU Lille, Lille, France.
Felix PreisserMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Timo F W SoeterikDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Francesco GigantiDepartment of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alberto MartiniDepartment of Urology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, US.
Isabel HeideggerDepartment of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Veeru KasivisvanathanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England.
Benjamin PradèreDepartment of Urology, La Croix Du Sud Hospital, Quint-Fonsegrives, France.
Guillaume PloussardDepartment of Urology, La Croix Du Sud Hospital, Quint-Fonsegrives, France.
Boris HadaschikDepartment of Urology, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Fabrizio Dal MoroDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Giancarlo MarraDepartment of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Giorgio GandagliaUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Fabio ZattoniDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padua, Italy. fabio.zattoni@unipd.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4178-373X
Claudia KeschDepartment of Urology, La Croix Du Sud Hospital, Quint-Fonsegrives, France.
EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Party

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveAccurate detection of unconventional histologies (UH) in prostate cancer (PCa) is crucial for treatment planning and prognosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting UH on prostatectomy, particularly cribriform architecture (CA) and intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P), in patients with localized PCa.

methodsA literature search was conducted in major databases for studies published after 2000. Seventeen articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were eligible for qualitative analysis. Five studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis.

resultsThe pooled sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) cutoff 3) to detect cribriform architecture were 0.91 and 0.29. The proportion of cribriform lesions increased with higher PI-RADS scores (23.2% for PI-RADS 1-2 to 66.7% for PI-RADS 5). For intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P), two studies found that IDC-P lesions were visible on mpMRI and had lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values compared to acinar prostate cancer. Four studies evaluating combined CA/IDC-P found sensitivities ranging from 33 to 100%. Lower ADC values were associated with CA/IDC-P in some studies, but not in others. Overall, mpMRI demonstrated promising sensitivity but moderate specificity in detecting these aggressive histological variants, with continued challenges in accurate sampling and characterization of mpMRI.

conclusionsmpMRI shows high sensitivity but moderate specificity in detecting cribriform architecture in PCa, especially for high PI-RADS scores. These findings support the use of mpMRI for UH detection, but caution is advised in clinical interpretation. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these results before routine clinical application. We studied how effective MRI is at identifying different UH of PCa, such as cribriform architecture and intraductal carcinoma. MRI is accurate at detecting these cancers when they are present, but it also produces a significant number of false positives. More research is needed to standardize imaging protocols and histological definition and ensure an accurate diagnosis. KEY POINTS: Question The accurate detection of unconventional histologies in prostate cancer, particularly cribriform architecture and intraductal carcinoma, is challenging but crucial for treatment planning and prognosis. Findings mpMRI shows high sensitivity (91%) but low specificity (29%) for detecting cribriform architecture, with detection rates increasing proportionally with higher PI-RADS scores. Clinical relevance mpMRI can effectively detect aggressive unconventional histologies in prostate cancer, though its moderate specificity suggests the need for careful interpretation. This aids in risk stratification and treatment planning, potentially improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID40307530
PMCPMC12712012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.