Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42755601›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026

MRI-derived features reveal recurrence heterogeneity in VI-RADS 2 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Junpeng Sun, Ziyong Wang, Maofa Yang, Zijian Tan, Hong Sun, Xusong Pang, Longguo Dai, Siting Wang, Kun Zhang, Tenglu Ma and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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

12 authors.

Junpeng Sun *Department of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Ziyong Wang *Department of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Maofa YangDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Zijian TanDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Hong SunDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Xusong PangDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Longguo DaiDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Siting WangDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Kun ZhangDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Tenglu MaDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Zhao CaoDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Hong YangDepartment of Urology I, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, Kunming, Yunnan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To characterize recurrence heterogeneity among patients with VI-RADS 2 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and to develop and internally validate a recurrence-free survival (RFS) prediction model incorporating quantitative MRI features. Methods: This retrospective study included 342 patients with pathologically confirmed VI-RADS 2 NMIBC, who were randomly divided into training and internal validation cohorts. Clinical and quantitative MRI variables were evaluated using Cox regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression, Boruta, and recursive feature elimination. Six survival prediction algorithms were developed and compared. The selected model was further compared with a clinical Cox model and the European Association of Urology (EAU) risk stratification system using the concordance index (C-index), time-dependent area under the curve (AUC), calibration, Brier score, and decision curve analysis. Results: Among 342 patients, 111 (32.5%) experienced recurrence. Six predictors were retained: tumor number, maximum tumor vertical distance, maximum tumor diameter, maximum tumor-base contact length, mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) at the tumor base, and minimum ADC within the tumor. The random survival forest (RSF) model achieved C-index values of 0.832 and 0.757 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. In the validation cohort, the corresponding C-index values were 0.417 for the clinical Cox model and 0.534 for the EAU risk stratification system. The RSF model also yielded higher time-dependent AUCs than both reference models and greater net benefit at the 60-month horizon. RSF-derived risk groups showed significantly different RFS in both cohorts; in the validation cohort, the hazard ratio for the high-risk versus low-risk group was 5.30 (95% confidence interval, 2.39-11.76). Conclusions: Within this single-center cohort, recurrence risk varied substantially among patients with VI-RADS 2 NMIBC. An RSF model incorporating quantitative MRI features and tumor number showed better internal discrimination than the clinical Cox model and the EAU risk stratification system and separated patients into distinct risk groups. These findings suggest that quantitative MRI features may complement conventional clinical assessment in this imaging-defined subgroup. Prospective multicenter external validation with longer follow-up is required before the model can be considered for clinical use.

Indexed as

bladder neoplasmsmachine learningmagnetic resonance imagingprognosisrecurrence

Identifiers

PMID42755601
PMCPMC13581660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.