ArticleBJU international2026
Impact of prostate mpMRI quality on diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer: a prospective study.
Article in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of MRI quality on the accuracy of targeted prostate biopsy: A prospective PI-QUAL analysis.European journal of radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo prospectively evaluate the influence of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) quality, as assessed by the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score, on diagnostic accuracy in men undergoing prostate biopsy after external mpMRI at a tertiary referral center. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom June 2024 to July 2025, a total of 246 consecutive patients referred for prostate biopsy after external mpMRI were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent systematic biopsy with targeted biopsy when indicated. External mpMRI scans were centrally reviewed by expert uro-radiologists blinded to clinical and pathological data. Image quality and lesion grading were reassessed using PI-QUAL v2 and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1. Accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade ≥2) was assessed using receiver operating characteristic-derived area under the curve AUC before and after review, stratified by PI-QUAL (1-2 vs 3).
resultsMedian age and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were 66.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 61-73) and 6.6 ng/mL (IQR 4.8-9.7), respectively, and csPCa was detected in 128 patients (52%). After review, 49 (20%), 113 (46%), and 84 (34%) mpMRI scans were classified as PI-QUAL 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The proportion of indeterminate PI-RADS 3 findings was 27% for PI-QUAL 1, 15% for PI-QUAL 2, and 8% for PI-QUAL 3. PI-QUAL 3 scans demonstrated greater diagnostic accuracy than PI-QUAL 1-2 (AUC 0.79 vs 0.66, P = 0.01). Central review improved csPCa detection in both PI-QUAL 1-2 (AUC 0.63 vs 0.78, P < 0.01) and PI-QUAL 3 (AUC 0.77 vs 0.89, P < 0.01) scans.
conclusionsHigh-quality mpMRI achieved approximately 15% higher diagnostic accuracy for csPCa and were associated with a lower prevalence of indeterminate findings than were low-quality MRI scans; centralized expert review reclassified nearly half of PI-RADS assessments. These findings support upfront high-quality mpMRI acquisition and PI-QUAL-based quality control to optimize diagnosis and reduce unnecessary procedures.
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.