Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40318951›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology oncology2026

Variation in Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Performance: Data from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.

Sunny B Nalavenkata, Emily Vertosick, Alberto Briganti, Hashim Ahmed, David Eldred-Evans, Steven Gordon, Holly Raghallaigh, Christian Gratzke, Michael O'Callaghan, Michael Liss and 12 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European urology oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Sunny B NalavenkataDepartment of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Emily VertosickDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Alberto BrigantiUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Hashim AhmedDepartment of Urology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
David Eldred-EvansDepartment of Urology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Steven GordonDepartment of Urology, Epsom Hospital, Surrey, UK.
Holly RaghallaighSt George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Christian GratzkeDivision of Urology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Michael O'CallaghanDivision of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Michael LissDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Peter ChiuSH Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Michael MüntenerDepartment of Urology, Triemli Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
John YaxleyWesley Urology Clinic, Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Cedric PoyetDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matthias JahnenTechnical University of Munich (TUM) Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Ants ToiJoint Department of Medical Imaging, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sangeet GhaiJoint Department of Medical Imaging, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel MargolisDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Donna AnkerstDepartment of Mathematics, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Behfar EhdaieDepartment of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Manish I PatelDepartment of Urology, Westmead Hospital, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: vickersa@mskcc.org.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
SPORE In Prostate CancerP50CA092629 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JAMES A EASTHAM · 2001 to 2026
$63.0M
Dynamic, multi-cohort prediction modeling of prostate biopsy outcomeR01CA179115 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI ANKERST, DONNA PAULER, VICKERS, ANDREW J · 2014 to 2018
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092629NCI NIH HHS R01 CA179115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe quality and reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are operator dependent, leading to variations in estimates such as positive predictive value across sites. This impacts patient counseling, risk modeling, and risk calculators. This study assessed variation in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score classification and subsequent probability of grade group (GG) ≥2 + prostate cancer.

methodsData from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group, including multiple sites in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific, were analyzed. Patients underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate followed by prostate biopsy during the years 2010-2023. Only those with MRI-targeted biopsy and PI-RADS score ≥3 were included. The risk of being assigned PI-RADS 4 or 5 and risk of GG ≥2 disease for these scores were estimated using logistic regression. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The cohort included 7325 biopsies from 7320 unique patients from 13 sites. A two-fold variation in the probability of PI-RADS 4 or 5 assignment across sites persisted even after adjustment for patient risk (heterogeneity p < 0.001 for both). There were significant differences in the absolute risk of GG ≥2 disease for PI-RADS 4 and 5 (heterogeneity p < 0.001 for both), varying between 23% and 68% and between 49% and 87%, respectively. The use of prostate biopsy as a reference standard has limitations but reflects typical usage of mpMRI in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The probability of being assigned PI-RADS 4 or 5 and subsequent detection of GG ≥2 disease varies widely between institutions. This impacts counseling, risk stratification, and clinical practice, necessitating better standardization in the performance and interpretation of mpMRI.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAgedBiopsyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedDetectionMultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingPositive predictive valueProstate biopsyRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID40318951
PMCPMC12353440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.