ReviewEuropean radiology2026
ESR Essentials: MRI-based T-staging in prostate cancer-practice recommendations by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.
Review in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating MRI-based tumour staging within the TNM classification system in modern prostate cancer management.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MRI-based T-staging in prostate cancer enables more precise and individualised treatment decisions compared with traditional clinical T-staging, yet inconsistent image acquisition, interpretation, and terminology limit reproducibility and clinical integration. This report recommends standardising MRI-based T-staging to strengthen its prognostic and therapeutic relevance. The prefix "mr" for MRI-based T-staging should be used, together with "extraprostatic extension" as the official radiologic term, replacing "extracapsular extension", to ensure consistency with pathology and the UICC TNM system. Within mrT3a disease, radiologists should differentiate "focal" from "established" extraprostatic extension, as established disease carries a higher recurrence risk and often requires more extensive surgical or radiotherapeutic management. Quality assurance programs, standardised acquisition protocols, and targeted education for radiologists and technologists are essential for improving interinstitutional consistency. Clinicians should incorporate proposed terminology and focal/established subclassification into structured reports and multidisciplinary discussions to refine risk stratification and guide nerve-sparing surgery or adjuvant therapy decisions. These coordinated measures will enhance the reproducibility and prognostic value of MRI-based T-staging, reduce overtreatment, and improve patient outcomes in contemporary prostate cancer management. KEY POINTS: The prefix "mr" should be added to T-staging for reporting and multidisciplinary team guidance, distinguishing it from clinical and pathological T-staging; extraprostatic extension should be explicitly defined as mrT3a. Staging assessment should be refined by subclassifying focal versus established extraprostatic extension to better guide risk stratification and treatment decisions. More reproducible and objective criteria of MRI-derived parameters should be adopted to reduce interpretation variability and to improve reader reproducibility.
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.