Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42164375›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2026

Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 as a predictor of clinically significant and aggressive prostate cancer: a radical prostatectomy-validated study.

Nisanard Pisuchpen, Kulyada Eurboonyanun, Aileen O'Shea, Rita Maria Lahoud, Isha D Atre, Mukesh Harisinghani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Nisanard Pisuchpen *Abdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9082-2977
Kulyada Eurboonyanun *Abdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4074-9297
Aileen O'SheaAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2172-7087
Rita Maria LahoudAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9849-3699
Isha D AtreAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7629-0129
Mukesh HarisinghaniAbdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0993-1947

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer incidence continues to rise globally, emphasizing the need for improved diagnostic and risk-stratification tools. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), identifying high-risk patients, and predicting adverse pathological outcomes using radical prostatectomy (RP) pathology as the reference standard. Methods: This retrospective study included 190 men who underwent preoperative multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) followed by RP. PI-RADS scores were independently assigned by two fellowship-trained radiologists and correlated with RP pathology. Results: Higher PI-RADS scores were strongly associated with higher radical prostatectomy Gleason scores (rpGSs), with each one-category increase yielding 8-10-fold higher odds of elevated rpGS (P<0.001). Associations remained significant after adjustment for age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and biopsy Gleason scores (bxGSs) [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 5.54-8.19, P<0.001]. Increasing PI-RADS categories were also significantly linked to extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and pathological T3 (pT3) disease (P<0.001-0.042). Each category increase corresponded to a threefold increase in odds of pT3 disease [OR 3.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.26-8.28, P=0.02]. Among diagnostic thresholds, PI-RADS ≥3 had the highest sensitivity but lower specificity, whereas PI-RADS ≥4 provided the best balance (accuracy 0.78-0.81; specificity 0.53-0.58). PI-RADS 5 showed the strongest association with aggressive disease features, including grade group ≥3 and pT3 status (accuracy 0.67-0.74). Incorporating MRI improved risk-prediction performance, increasing the concordance index (C-index) from 0.864 (biopsy-only) to 0.883-0.894 and raising the area under the curve (AUC) for csPCa detection from 0.88 to 0.91-0.92. Interobserver agreement was near-perfect (weighted κ=0.96). Conclusions: PI-RADS v2.1 is a robust predictor of clinically significant and aggressive prostate cancer, demonstrating excellent reliability and incremental value beyond clinical parameters and biopsy. PI-RADS ≥4 represents an optimal threshold for csPCa detection, while PI-RADS 5 identifies patients at highest risk for adverse pathology. MRI-integrated assessment should inform risk stratification, active surveillance selection, and surgical planning.

Indexed as

clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)Gleason scoreProstate cancerProstate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)prostate magnetic resonance imaging (prostate MRI)

Identifiers

PMID42164375
PMCPMC13184346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.