ReviewInsights into imaging2026
Integrating MRI-based tumour staging within the TNM classification system in modern prostate cancer management.
Review in Insights into imaging, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MRI has transformed prostate cancer diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment planning. However, the tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) classification continues to rely exclusively on digital rectal examination (DRE) for clinical T-staging, despite DRE's limited diagnostic accuracy and prognostic performance. This mismatch between modern MRI practice and outdated staging criteria undermines prognostication and treatment decision-making. In this review, we synthesise current evidence on DRE- and MRI-based local staging, discuss the limitations of the current TNM framework, and present a proposal for parallel reporting of MRI-based T-staging (mrT) alongside clinical T-staging (cT). We further outline the rationale for developing MRI-derived prognostic groups, benchmarked against pathology and long-term oncologic outcomes, and present a framework intended to support future evidence-based revisions of the official TNM classification. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Clinical adoption of prostate MRI, TNM T-staging still relies on digital rectal examination, a method with limited sensitivity and prognostic value. This discordance leads to stage misclassification and suboptimal risk stratification. Parallel reporting of MRI-based T-staging and development of MRI-derived prognostic groups are essential to align staging with contemporary imaging practice, support evidence-based treatment decisions, and inform future revisions of the TNM classification system. KEY POINTS: Digital rectal examination (DRE) is inferior to MRI for detecting extraprostatic extension. MRI-based and DRE-based T-staging should be reported separately to evaluate stage migration, as MRI-based T-staging may shift patients into higher stages without reflecting true biological risk. Parallel reporting of MRI-based T-staging and development of MRI-derived prognostic groups are essential to align staging with contemporary imaging practice, support evidence-based treatment decisions, and inform future revisions of the TNM classification system.
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.