ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the active surveillance of prostate cancer: state of the art.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
pourposeTo provide an update on the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer, with particular focus on standardizing image acquisition and reporting through PI-RADS v2.1, PI-QUAL v2, and PRECISE v2, as well as their clinical implications in risk stratification and follow-up. MATERIALS AND
methodsNarrative review of the literature and the most recent international guidelines on the use of mpMRI in patients undergoing AS. Selection criteria, follow-up protocols (12-24 months), imaging quality parameters (PI-QUAL v2), the longitudinal assessment system PRECISE v2, and the main radiological triggers for re-biopsy and multidisciplinary discussion were analyzed.
resultsBaseline mpMRI improves candidate selection and reduces the risk of underestimating clinically significant disease. During follow-up, radiological progression shows a sensitivity of approximately 59% and specificity of approximately 75%, with a high negative predictive value (81-88%) but moderate positive predictive value. PRECISE v2 introduces updated categories, mandatory integration of image quality assessment, and systematic comparison with prior examinations, thereby improving reproducibility and comparability.
conclusionsThe standardized integration of mpMRI, PI-QUAL v2, and PRECISE v2 enables more structured patient monitoring and supports multidisciplinary decision-making. However, mpMRI does not replace scheduled biopsies. The implementation of radiomics and artificial intelligence may further enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of active surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42599455What 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.