Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42426432›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2026

Integrating MRI-based tumour staging within the TNM classification system in modern prostate cancer management.

Georgios Agrotis, Andrei Purysko, Anwar Padhani, Fredrik Jäderling, Geert Villeirs, Samuel J Withey, Maarten de Rooij, Tristan Barrett, Ivo G Schoots

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

9 authors.

Georgios AgrotisDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.agrotis@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3752-1315
Andrei PuryskoSection of Abdominal Imaging and Nuclear Radiology Department, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Anwar PadhaniPaul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London, United Kingdom.
Fredrik JäderlingDepartment of Radiology, Capio St Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9042-7328
Geert VilleirsDepartment of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Samuel J WitheyDepartment of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3612-844X
Maarten de RooijDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tristan BarrettDepartment of Radiology, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Addenbrooke's Hospital & University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Ivo G SchootsDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9804-0603

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Digital rectal examinationExtraprostatic extensionMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerTumour staging

Identifiers

PMID42426432
PMCPMC13350576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.