ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Multicentre validation of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI during active surveillance.
Article in European radiology, 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
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations assess radiological change in serial MRI during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. PRECISE 1-2 indicates radiological regression, PRECISE 3 stability, and PRECISE 4-5 progression. Our aim was to test the PRECISE score as a predictive tool for disease progression in a multicentre international setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a retrospective study in which we collected data from 22 international centres from December 2005 to July 2022, applying two entry criteria: (1) at least two scans (baseline and follow-up); (2) at least two biopsies (baseline and follow-up, the latter after the second scan). Local radiologists reported scans according to PRECISE. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) according to different biopsy thresholds and definitions of progression were calculated.
resultsA total of 1667 patients were included. Median follow-up was 4 years (IQR: 2.1-6.3). A total of 1248 (75%) patients underwent two MRIs and immediate subsequent biopsy, 300 (24%) of which had biopsy progression to Grade Group ≥ 2 and 77 (6%) to Grade Group ≥ 3. Patients with PRECISE 4-5 had 4.53-fold increased odds (95% CI: 3.37-6.12; p < 0.001) of biopsy progression compared to PRECISE 1-3. Using a PRECISE ≥ 4 cutoff to perform follow-up biopsies, overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 57%, 79%, 46%, and 85% for the first follow-up scan.
conclusionThe PRECISE recommendations could lead to timely identification of patients on AS who progress on MRI, prompting re-biopsy or treatment, and safe reduction of repeat biopsies for those with stable MRI and prostate-specific antigen kinetics. KEY POINTS: Question Can the PRECISE scoring system for monitoring prostate cancer lesions on active surveillance on MRI predict disease progression and avoid unnecessary biopsies? Findings The PRECISE score effectively predicts prostate cancer progression, with PRECISE 4-5 (progression) scores indicating 4.53-fold increased odds of biopsy progression compared to PRECISE 1-3 (regression/stability). Clinical relevance This study validates PRECISE as a tool for managing patients on active surveillance. It can help clinicians identify those needing timely re-biopsy or treatment, while reducing unnecessary biopsies in patients with stable disease on imaging and PSA kinetics.
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.