ArticleEuropean urology open science2026
Comparative assessment of METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer versus Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 Criteria in assessing treatment response in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Article in European urology open science, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unequivocal clinical progression without radiological progression according to Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 (PCWG3) criteria is recognised in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), reflecting limitations of bone scintigraphy in distinguishing an osteoblastic progression from an osteoblastic flare. Objective: To compare the METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P) on whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) with PCWG3 imaging criteria, the current gold standard. Design setting and participants: A retrospective cohort of 184 patients with mCRPC who underwent paired WBMRI and conventional imaging during therapy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was concordance (percentage agreement [%A]) between MET-RADS-P and PCWG3 for overall, bone-only, and soft-tissue-only responses. Secondary endpoints were radiologic progression-free survival (rPFS) by each system and overall survival (OS) according to early (≤12 wk) MET-RADS-P response. Results and limitations: We evaluated 467 paired assessments in 184 patients. Overall concordance between PCWG3 and MET-RADS-P was moderate (%A = 64.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 59.8-68.7), and it was high in soft tissue (%A = 88.8%; 95% CI = 85.7-91.6) and limited in bone (%A = 44.4%; 95% CI = 39.8-48.9). MET-RADS-P labelled progression more often than PCWG3 overall (66.6% vs 39.7%) and in bone (61.2% vs 20.3%). Median rPFS was shorter by MET-RADS-P than by PCWG3 (2.7 vs 4.2 mo; Conclusions: Concordance between PCWG3 and MET-RADS-P was moderate overall and limited in bone. Earlier MET-RADS-P-defined progression may identify aggressive disease and allow a prompt change in therapy before clinical deterioration limits subsequent treatment options. Prospective validation is warranted.
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.