ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2026
The predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in enhancing prostate-specific antigen assessment for prostate cancer: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy remain standard tools for diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa), but both have limitations in sensitivity and specificity, leading to overdiagnosis or missed detection of clinically significant cancers. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) has emerged as a valuable imaging modality for PCa detection and risk stratification, yet the optimal integration of mp-MRI findings with PSA levels for pre-biopsy assessment remains to be fully established. This study aims to evaluate the predictive value of mp-MRI in enhancing PSA-based assessment for clinically significant PCa. Methods: This cross-sectional study involved patients with clinically suspected PCa who underwent mp-MRI prior to systematic biopsy guided by TRUS. Results: A total of 192 patients with suspected PCa underwent mp-MRI before biopsy guided by TRUS. Grouping by Gleason score revealed that patients with a Gleason score of <7 had significantly lower PSA levels, PSA density, maximum lesion diameter, total lesion volume, and lesion density compared to those with a Gleason score of ≥7. Similarly, when grouped by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) grade, patients with a PI-RADS score of ≤2 had significantly lower values in these parameters compared to those with a PI-RADS score of ≥3. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that patients with high PSA levels and positive mp-MRI results had an increased risk of PCa. The sensitivity and specificity of mp-MRI for diagnosing PCa were 73.7% and 81.7%, respectively, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.777 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.725-0.829]. For PSA (cutoff =6.87, determined using the Youden index from the ROC curve), the sensitivity was 80.0%, specificity was 74.6%, and AUC was 0.745 (95% CI: 0.678-0.813). This cutoff value was derived by identifying the point on the ROC curve that maximizes the sum of sensitivity and specificity, thereby optimizing diagnostic performance. Patients with PSA levels above this threshold were considered at higher risk for clinically significant PCa in the subsequent regression and model analysis. The combined use of positive mp-MRI and PSA resulted in an AUC of 0.854 (95% CI: 0.806-0.902). Conclusions: For men at clinical risk for PCa who have not previously undergone biopsy, the risk assessment using mp-MRI prior to biopsy is superior to standard TRUS-guided biopsy.
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.