Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.


Prostate MRI can be accurate but can variability be reduced?

Prostate MRI has reached the point of being a mature technology with an established clinical need, so the modality is here to stay. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon the radiology community to find practical solutions for the ongoing variability in interpretation and diagnostic performance of this technique.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Challenges to using prostate multiparametric MRI in clinical staging nomograms.


  1. 1.

    De Rooij, M. et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 70, 233–245 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Salerno, J. et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for pre-treatment local staging of prostate cancer: a Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 10, E332–E339 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Riney, J. C. et al.Prostate magnetic resonance imaging: the truth lies in the eye of the beholder. Urol. Oncol. (2018).

  4. 4.

    Tay, K. J. et al. Defining the incremental utility of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at standard and specialized read in predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 70, 211–213 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wibmer, A. et al. Diagnosis of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer on prostate MRI: impact of second-opinion readings by subspecialized genitourinary oncologic radiologists. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 205, W73–W78 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Rosenkrantz, A. B. et al. Evolving utilization of pre-biopsy prostate MRI in the medicare population. J. Urol. (2018).

  7. 7.

    Rosenkrantz, A. B. et al. The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 208, W92–W100 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gaziev, G. et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int. 117, 80–86 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Weinreb, J. C. et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur. Urol. 69, 16–40 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Rosenkrantz, A. B. et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), version 2: a critical look. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 206, 1179–1183 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajan T. Gupta.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, R.T., Rosenkrantz, A.B. Prostate MRI can be accurate but can variability be reduced?. Nat Rev Urol 15, 339–340 (2018).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing