ReviewCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2026
The evolving PI-RADS paradigm.
Review in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 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
Prostate MRI is central to the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (PCa), reducing unnecessary biopsies, improving the detection of clinically significant disease (csPCa), and limiting overdiagnosis of indolent tumours. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) version 2.1 is the current international standard for MRI data acquisition and interpretation. This review synthesises the evidence for its use, its strengths and limitations, and future developments. PI-RADS v2.1 improved the assessments of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) by clarifying technical requirements, zone-specific interpretation rules, and structured reporting recommendations. Its diagnostic performance is well established, particularly for ruling out csPCa and guiding risk-adapted biopsy strategies. However, significant gaps remain. MRI image quality varies substantially across centres, and PI-RADS lacks a mechanism to exclude non-diagnostic scans, resulting in inconsistent classification. Several scoring challenges persist, most notably the ambiguous definition and heterogeneous management of PI-RADS 3 lesions, imprecise lesion measurement standards, and limited guidance for central-zone and atypical lesions. Gaps include the absence of strategies for assessing background tissue changes and infiltrative patterns. Cancer detection specificity and inter-reader agreement remain moderate, with significant discrepancies in transition-zone assessments. Artificial intelligence (AI) holds promise for reducing variability, improving lesion detection, and optimising workflow, though rigorous validation and clear human-AI integration frameworks are needed. Advances in deep learning reconstructions improve image quality and enable shorter protocols, thereby supporting the adoption of biparametric MRI. A shift toward risk-based pathways, integrating MRI findings with PSA density and clinical parameters, is reflected in the forthcoming PI-RADS Pathway 2026, which aims to standardize global biopsy practice and reduce unnecessary interventions.
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.