Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41541939›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Pitfalls and Limitations of the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS): Challenges in the Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) Assessment of Bladder Cancer.

José Laert, Nuno Lupi Manso, Tomás França de Santana, Pedro O Santos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

José LaertRadiology Department, Hospital CUF Tejo, Lisbon, PRT.
Nuno Lupi MansoRadiology Department, Hospital CUF Tejo, Lisbon, PRT.
Tomás França de SantanaRadiology Department, Hospital CUF Tejo, Lisbon, PRT.
Pedro O SantosRadiology Department, Hospital CUF Tejo, Lisbon, PRT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) has emerged as a standardised scoring system for assessing detrusor muscle invasion in patients with urothelial bladder cancer using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Accurate staging is critical for guiding treatment decisions, including bladder-sparing strategies and radical cystectomy. We performed a comprehensive literature review, complemented by illustrative images from real cases at our institution, to highlight potential pitfalls, limitations, and technical challenges in VI-RADS interpretation. Post-transurethral resection of bladder tumour (post-TURBT) changes, intravesical therapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy may mimic residual tumour, affecting both diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. Specific tumour locations, such as the ureteric orifices, trigone, or bladder neck, as well as flat or small lesions, may complicate accurate staging. Non-urothelial histologies, extravesical tumours, and bladder diverticula can also lead to misinterpretation, while technical factors such as bladder distension, motion artefacts, and slice thickness can impact image quality and scoring accuracy. VI-RADS remains a valuable tool for the non-invasive staging of bladder cancer, but recognition of its limitations and potential pitfalls is essential to prevent misdiagnosis and inappropriate management. Careful integration of clinical history, cystoscopy, histopathology, and meticulous mpMRI technique improves diagnostic confidence and guides optimal patient care.

Indexed as

bladder cancermultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpmri)transurethral resection of bladder tumour (turbt)uro-radiologyvesical imaging-reporting and data system (vi-rads)

Identifiers

PMID41541939
PMCPMC12800710

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.