ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Impact of central review and MRI image quality on prostate cancer diagnosis and biopsy decision-making in referred patients.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the impact of central review on prostate MRI interpretation, clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection, and biopsy decision-making in referred patients, and to investigate the influence of MRI image quality on diagnostic performance.
methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive patients referred to a tertiary cancer center for biopsy after undergoing prostate MRI at external hospitals between December 2024 and November 2025. All MRI examinations underwent blinded expert central review with reassessment of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 and Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) v2 scores. Diagnostic performance and biopsy recommendations based on local assessments and central review were compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
resultsA total of 154 patients were included, of whom 76.0% (117/154) had csPCa. Compared with local assessments, central review significantly improved diagnostic performance for csPCa detection (AUC: 0.653 [0.558-0.747] vs 0.860 [0.785-0.936], P < 0.001). Using PI-RADS ≥ 3 as the threshold, central review improved diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity (all P < 0.05). Biopsy decision accuracy also improved from 0.779 [0.705-0.842] to 0.857 [0.792-0.908] (P < 0.05), with the benefit primarily observed in examinations with acceptable image quality (PI-QUAL v2 > 1: 0.768 [0.651-0.861] vs 0.870 [0.767-0.939], P < 0.05), whereas no significant improvement was observed in PI-QUAL v2 = 1 examinations. In patients with prostate-specific antigen < 10 ng/mL, central review escalated 36.4% (4/11) of initially non-biopsy-recommended patients to biopsy, with 75.0% confirmed as csPCa, while avoiding 18.0% (11/61) of initially recommended biopsies; the only missed csPCa case (9.1% [1/11]) occurred in a PI-QUAL v2 = 1 examination.
conclusionExpert central review showed potential in improving prostate MRI interpretation and biopsy decision-making in referred patients. However, MRI image quality remains a critical determinant of diagnostic reliability, supporting routine implementation of image quality assessment and expert consultation in referral pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42517901What 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.