Review highlights the integration of MRI-based staging for prostate cancer to improve treatment decisions and prognostication.
MRI has transformed prostate cancer diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment planning. However, the tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) classification continues to rely exclusively on digital rectal examination (DRE) for clinical T-staging, despite DRE’s limited diagnostic accuracy and prognostic performance. This mismatch between modern MRI practice and outdated staging criteria undermines prognostication and treatment decision-making. In this review, we synthesise current evidence on DRE- and MRI-based local staging, discuss the limitations of the current TNM framework, and present a proposal for parallel reporting of MRI-based T-staging (mrT) alongside clinical T-staging (cT). We further outline the rationale for developing MRI-derived prognostic groups, benchmarked against pathology and long-term oncologic outcomes, and present a framework intended to support future evidence-based revisions of the official TNM classification. Critical relevance statement Clinical adoption of prostate MRI, TNM T-staging still relies on digital rectal examination, a method with limited sensitivity and prognostic value. This discordance leads to stage misclassification and suboptimal risk stratification. Parallel reporting of MRI-based T-staging and development of MRI-derived prognostic groups are essential to align staging with contemporary imaging practice, support evidence-based treatment decisions, and inform future revisions of the TNM classification system. Key Points Digital rectal examination (DRE) is inferior to MRI for detecting extraprostatic extension. MRI-based and DRE-based T-staging should be reported separately to evaluate stage migration, as MRI-based T-staging may shift patients into higher stages without reflecting true biological risk. Parallel reporting of MRI-based T-staging and development of MRI-derived prognostic groups are essential to align staging with contemporary imaging practice, support evidence-based treatment decisions, and inform future revisions of the TNM classification system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agrotis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: