Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42878808›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2026

Prostate cancer screening with MRI: insights from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group.

Giorgio Brembilla, Emanuele Messina, Tristan Barret, Iztok Caglic, Renato Cuocolo, Maarten de Rooij, Roberto Garcia Figueiras, Rossano Girometti, Adalgisa Guerra, Charlie Alexander Hamm and 13 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

23 authors.

Giorgio Brembilla *Vita Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
Emanuele Messina *Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University/Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
Tristan BarretUniversity Department of Radiology, Box 218 Addenbrooke's Hospital Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Iztok CaglicDepartment of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Renato CuocoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery, and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy.
Maarten de RooijDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Roberto Garcia FigueirasDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela Choupana s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15706, Spain.
Rossano GiromettiInstitute of Radiology, Department of Medicine (DMED), University of Udine - University Hospital S. Maria della Misericordia, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (ASUFC), Udine, P.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15, 33100, Udine, Italy.
Adalgisa GuerraImaging Department of Hospital da Luz Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Charlie Alexander HammDepartment of Radiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Guglielmo ManentiDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Interventional Radiology, A.O.U. Policlinico Tor Vergata, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Andrea PonsiglioneDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Raphaële Renard PennaDepartment of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Jonathan RichenbergDepartment of Imaging, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Evis SalaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Harriet ThoenyUniversity Teaching and Research Hospital HFR, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Ahmet T TurgutInterventional Uroradiology Clinic, 0639, Ankara, Turkey.
Joan C VilanovaDepartment of Radiology, Clinica Girona, Institute of Diagnostic Imaging (IDI) Girona, University of Girona, Girona, Spain.
Sam J WitheyDepartment of Radiology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Jeries ZawaidehDepartment of General and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Metropolitana, Genova, Italy.
Jelle BarentszAndros Clinics, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Valeria PanebiancoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University/Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy. valeria.panebianco@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3091-8192
ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Magnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerPSAScreening

Identifiers

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.