ReviewEuropean radiology2026
Prostate cancer screening with MRI: insights from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group.
Review in European radiology, 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial due to uncertain long-term benefits, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment of indolent disease. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has transformed the diagnostic pathway of PCa and is increasingly explored as a screening tool. This special report from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group provides an overview of current evidence and insights into the potential role of MRI in PCa screening. MRI-based screening strategies appear to improve detection of clinically significant PCa while reducing unnecessary biopsies and diagnoses of non-significant disease, though long-term outcome data, including mortality impact and interval cancer rates, remain limited. Biparametric MRI is particularly suited for screening due to its shorter acquisition time, reduced operational complexity, and lower costs compared with multiparametric MRI. Two main implementation approaches have emerged: MRI-first pathways, which maximise detection but require substantial resources, and risk-stratified strategies, in which MRI is used after initial assessment (e.g. PSA), potentially offering greater feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Evidence from large trials supports integrating MRI into screening pathways, particularly as a reflex test after PSA screening, although uncertainties remain regarding optimal protocols, interpretation thresholds, follow-up strategies, and long-term outcomes. Key barriers include limited MRI capacity, economic considerations, and the need for standardisation and quality assurance. Advances in artificial intelligence may further enhance efficiency. Overall, MRI has the potential to improve the balance between benefits and harms in PCa screening, but further evidence is required to define its optimal implementation. KEY POINTS: Question Can prostate MRI be effectively integrated into population-based prostate cancer screening pathways? Findings MRI-based screening improves detection of csPCa while reducing unnecessary biopsies; biparametric MRI should be the protocol of choice to enhance feasibility, although optimal implementation and long-term outcomes remain uncertain. Clinical relevance MRI may overcome key limitations of PSA-based screening by enhancing the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer while reducing harms such as overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878808What 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.