Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41720935›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2026

ESR Essentials: MRI-based T-staging in prostate cancer-practice recommendations by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.

Georgios Agrotis, Fredrik Jäderling, Amish Lakhani, Ana Sofia L Moreira, Maka Kekelidze, Justyna Rembak-Szynkiewicz, Vibeke Logager, Harriet Thoeny, Geert Villeirs, Sungmin Woo and 1 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  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

11 authors.

Georgios AgrotisDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.agrotis@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3752-1315
Fredrik JäderlingDepartment of Radiology, Capio St Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9042-7328
Amish LakhaniPaul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London, UK.
Ana Sofia L MoreiraDepartment of Radiology, Unidade Local de Saúde do Algarve (ULS Algarve), Faro, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6113-0541
Maka KekelidzeInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Justyna Rembak-SzynkiewiczRadiology and Diagnostic Imaging Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland.
Vibeke LogagerRadiological Department, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5343-6869
Harriet ThoenyDepartment of Radiology, University Teaching and Research Hospital HFR, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Geert VilleirsDepartment of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Sungmin WooDepartment of Radiology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, US.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8459-8369
Ivo G SchootsDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9804-0603

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsEuropeHumansMaleNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRadiologyReproducibility of ResultsSocieties, MedicalExtraprostatic extensionMagnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm stagingPrognosisProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID41720935
PMCPMC13282209

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.