Nationwide population-based longitudinal data on magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and subsequent prostate biopsy results
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v61.45540Keywords:
prostate cancer, prostate MRI, PIRADS, prostate biopsy, PSA densityAbstract
Background and aim: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is crucial for prostate cancer (Pca) diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment planning. However, large-scale observational studies require structured MRI data, which are often only obtainable from free-text reports. We aimed to extract information from narrative prostate MRI reports and to describe subsequent biopsy outcomes in a nationwide population-based cohort.
Methods: We identified 108,361 prostate MRI examinations in Prostate Cancer database Sweden with extended treatments and endpoints data (PCBase Xtend) performed in 2015–2023. A rule-based text recognition algorithm was created and used to extract Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score and prostate volume from free-text MRI reports. Extracted data were validated against manually extracted information in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR). We examined biopsy rates and Gleason score according to PI-RADS, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) density, and calendar year.
Results: The proportion of reports with identifiable PI-RADS scores increased from 38% in 2015–2016 to 83% in 2022–2023, with excellent agreement with NPCR data (correlation coefficient r = 0.94). Extracted prostate volumes correlated well with those in NPCR (r = 0.88). Biopsy rates decreased for PI-RADS 3 lesions over time, particularly in men with PSA density < 0.15 ng/ml/ml, while the proportion of men with PI-RADS 5 lesions who underwent biopsy increased. Almost all prostate cancers in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions were Gleason 6 or 7 (3+4). Gleason 9–10 was almost exclusively found in PI-RADS 5 lesions.
Conclusions: Automated extraction of information from unstructured MRI reports is feasible and accurate. The observed temporal trends reflecting increasing quality and standardization of prostate MRI support its use in large-scale epidemiological research.
Downloads
References
Stabile A, Mazzone E, Cirulli GO, et al: Association Between Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate and Oncological Outcomes after Primary Treatment for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2021; 4: 519–528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.11.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.11.008
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815–822.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al: MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018; 378: 1767–1777.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, et al: The Evolution of MRI of the Prostate: The Past, the Present, and the Future. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2019; 213: 384–396.
https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20796 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20796
Stabile A, Giganti F, Kasivisvanathan V, et al: Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2020; 3: 145–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.02.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.02.005
Nalavenkata SB, Vertosick E, Briganti A, et al: Variation in Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Performance: Data from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2026; 9(1):156-163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.02.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.02.007
Pickersgill NA, Vetter JM, Andriole GL, et al: Accuracy and Variability of Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System: A Blinded Comparison of Radiologists. Eur. Urol. Focus 2020; 6: 267–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.10.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.10.008
Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al: Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 41–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur. Urol. 2019; 76: 340–351.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
Westerberg M, Holm L, Garmo H, et al: Cohort Profile Update: The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and PCBase. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2025; 54.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf172
Ventimiglia E, Gedeborg R, Orrason AW, et al: A comparison of comorbidity indices and estimates of life expectancy for men with prostate cancer. Scand. J. Urol. 2025; 60: 105–107.
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43810 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43810
Orrason AW, Scilipoti P, Garmo H, et al: Improved adherence to prostate cancer guidelines concomitant with public reporting. Nationwide population-based study. Scand. J. Urol. 2025; 60: 50–58.
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43107
Thomsen FF, Garmo H, Egevad L, et al: Temporal trend in risk of prostate cancer death in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer. Scand. J. Urol. 2024; 59: 76–83.
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.34015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.34015
Maljkovic J, Bill-Axelson A, Hållberg H, et al: Time trends for the use of active surveillance and deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer in Sweden: a nationwide study. Scand. J. Urol. 2024; 59: 200–206.
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.40123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.40123
Stranne J: 2023/2024 update of the national prostate cancer guidelines in Sweden. Scand. J. Urol. 2024; 59: 210–211.
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42656 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42656
Cazzaniga W, Ventimiglia E, Alfano M, et al: Mini Review on the Use of Clinical Cancer Registers for Prostate Cancer: The National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden. Front. Med. (Lausanne). 2019; 6: 51.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00051
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al: PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 16–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
Culnan JM, Goryachev SD, Bihn JR, et al: Automated Extraction of Imaging and Pathology Data From Diverse Prostate Cancer Electronic Records. JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. 2025; 9: e2500085.
https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI-25-00085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI-25-00085
Mazzone E, Stabile A, Pellegrino F, et al: Positive Predictive Value of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2021; 4: 697–713.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.004
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al: EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur. Urol. 2021; 79: 243–262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
Björnebo L, Discacciati A, Abbadi A, et al: Prostate-specific Antigen Density as a Selection Tool Before Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: An Analysis from the STHLM3MRI Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur. Urol. Focus 2025.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2025.06.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2025.06.008
Pellegrino F, Stabile A, Sorce G, et al: Added Value of Prostate-specific Antigen Density in Selecting Prostate Biopsy Candidates Among Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen and PI-RADS ≥3 Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate: A Systematic Assessment by PI-RADS Score. Eur. Urol. Focus 2024; 10: 634–640.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2023.10.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2023.10.006
Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, et al: The Learning Curve in Prostate MRI Interpretation: Self-Directed Learning Versus Continual Reader Feedback. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2017; 208: W92–W100.
https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16876 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16876
Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al: Interreader Variability of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Detecting and Assessing Prostate Cancer Lesions at Prostate MRI. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2019; 212: 1197–1205.
https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20536 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20536
Hansen NL, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, et al: Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy. Eur. Radiol. 2017; 27: 2259–2266.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4635-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4635-5
Thimansson E, Axén E, Jäderling F, et al: A novel approach to integrated prostate cancer diagnostics: insights from MRI , prostate biopsy, and pathology reports in a pilot study. BJU Int. 2025; 135: 245–248.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16582 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16582
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eugenio Ventimiglia, Rolf Gedeborg, Marcus Westerberg, Paolo Zaurito, Fredrik Jäderling, Pär Stattin, Hans Garmo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
