ReviewCancers2026
Contemporary Preoperative Detection of Extraprostatic Extension in Prostate Cancer.
Review in Cancers, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extraprostatic extension (EPE) is an important prognostic factor in prostate cancer and influences nerve-sparing decisions during radical prostatectomy. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is the standard for local staging, but its sensitivity for EPE remains limited, and its interpretation is subject to inter-reader variability. In this narrative review, we aim to create an overview of contemporary strategies for the preoperative detection of EPE. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, focusing on studies published between 2015 and 2025 including articles evaluating clinical parameters, mpMRI features, nomograms, radiomics, machine learning, and deep learning models for EPE prediction. The analyzed literature was compared with respect to diagnostic performance, validation strategy, and clinical applicability of individual methods. Clinical parameters and traditional nomograms provide moderate accuracy for EPE detection. mpMRI improves staging, with tumor-capsule contact length as the most important single imaging marker. Radiomics-based and machine-learning models matched and occasionally outperform conventional approaches, achieving AUC values ranging from 0.75 to 0.85. Deep-learning models demonstrated similar performance by directly analyzing imaging data, although most lacked external validation and were sensitive to dataset heterogeneity. Several radiomics and deep learning models demonstrated performance comparable to, and in selected studies exceeding, expert radiologist assessment. Binary EPE classification has limited clinical value, while side-specific and graded EPE assessment offers a more clinically relevant approach. Translation of these tools into routine practice will require multimodal, side-specific, and externally validated models supported by automated segmentation and explainable artificial intelligence frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.