ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Innovative imaging techniques for urothelial carcinoma].
Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImaging guides the staging of urothelial carcinoma and thus plays a central role in treatment decisions. Current guidelines reflect the increasing importance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the bladder with standardized reporting according to the Vesical Imaging Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis work comprises a narrative, guideline-oriented update based on the European Association of Urology (EAU; 2025 update) and German S3 guidelines (long version 3.0, 2025); recent key studies on VI-RADS-/bpMRT- and PET-based methods; and early targeted imaging approaches.
resultsMultiparametric MRI with classification according to VI-RADS shows high accuracy for discriminating between non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and MIBC (area under the receiver operating curve ≈ 0.93-0.95) with good interobserver reliability. Regarding the question "muscle-invasive: yes/no," biparametric MRI (bpMRI) without contrast agent is frequently noninferior to mpMRI in selected settings and reduces the imaging time; however, contrast agent can be useful in the case of unclear findings. For distant and nodal staging, fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/CT (FDG-PET/CT) shows an incremental advantage over CT in selected situations. While hybrid PET/MRI implementation is already promising but not yet nationwide, NECTIN-4-targetted PET imaging is still in its infancy and also limited by heterogeneous target expression.
conclusionFor local staging of urothelial carcinoma, mpMRI-or, in selected cases, bpMRI-should preferably be performed prior to transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TUR-B) according to VI-RADS standards. Only in selected cases is FDG-PET/CT to be used for N/M staging and restaging. Targeted imaging (e.g., NECTIN-4) and artificial intelligence (AI) are still in the research phase, whereby prospective trials with decision-impact outcomes and standardized implementation and quality processes have priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41636843What 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.