https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2026.15720
Diagnostic accuracy of MRI and PSMA PET/CT for detection of histologically confirmed lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer: A systematic review
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 28 August 2026
Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the detection of histologically confirmed pelvic lymph node metastases in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2011 to March 2026. Studies evaluating PSMA PET/CT and/or mpMRI for preoperative pelvic lymph node staging using histopathology as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies-2 tool (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a hierarchical bivariate random- effects (Reitsma) model, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were generated.
Results: Sixteen studies comprising 1,999 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies contributed to the PSMA PET/CT analysis and six studies to the mpMRI analysis. For PSMA PET/CT, pooled sensitivity was 54.6% (95% CI 43.7-65.1%) and pooled specificity was 92.7% (95% CI 90.5-94.4%). The HSROC area under the curve (AUC) was 0.909. For mpMRI, pooled sensitivity was 33.0% (95% CI 18.7-51.3%) and pooled specificity was 94.9% (95% CI 92.2-96.8%), with an HSROC AUC of 0.941. Indirect comparison of pooled estimates suggested that PSMA PET/CT had higher sensitivity and a higher diagnostic odds ratio than mpMRI. However, because these estimates were derived from separate bodies of evidence rather than direct head-to-head comparative studies, this comparison should be interpreted with caution.
Conclusions: PSMA PET/CT demonstrated higher pooled sensitivity than mpMRI while maintaining similarly high specificity for detecting pelvic lymph node metastases. However, the moderate sensitivity of both imaging modalities indicates that a negative PSMA PET/CT scan cannot reliably exclude microscopic nodal disease. Furthermore, this comparison between pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution because it is based on an indirect comparison rather than a formal head-to-head meta-analysis. Consequently, extended pelvic lymph node dissection remains the reference standard for pathological nodal staging in appropriately selected patients, and prospective head-to-head comparative studies are required to define the relative diagnostic performance of PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI.
Downloads
1. Raychaudhuri R, Lin DW, Montgomery RB. Prostate Cancer. JAMA 2025; 333:1433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.0228
2. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Https://UrowebOrg/Guidelines/Prostate-Cancer/Chapter/. Diagnostic-Evaluation 2025.
3. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated Nomogram Predicting Lymph Node Invasion in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: The Essential Importance of Percentage of Positive Cores. Eur Urol 2012; 61:480-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044
4. Thoeny HC, Barbieri S, Froehlich JM, et al. Functional and Targeted Lymph Node Imaging in Prostate Cancer: Current Status and Future Challenges. Radiology 2017; 285:728-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161517
5. Thoeny HC, Froehlich JM, Triantafyllou M, et al. Metastases in Normal-sized Pelvic Lymph Nodes: Detection with Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging. Radiology 2014; 273:125-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132921
6. Hope TA, Eiber M, Armstrong WR, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET for Pelvic Nodal Metastasis Detection Prior to Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7:1635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3771
7. Yang B, Dong H, Zhang S, et al. PSMA PET vs. mpMRI for Lymph Node Metastasis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Head-to- Head Comparative Meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 2025;32:2797-814. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.11.029
8. Ingvar J, Hvittfeldt E, Trägårdh E, et al. Assessing the accuracy of (18F)PSMA-1007 PET/CT for primary staging of lymph node metastases in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. EJNMMI Res 2022; 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-022-00918-7
9. Stabile A, Pellegrino A, Mazzone E, et al. Can Negative Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Avoid the Need for Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with Backup Histology as Reference Standard. Eur Urol Oncol 2022; 5:1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.08.001
10. Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud FX, et al. Outcomes of Primary Lymph Node Staging of Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer with 68Ga-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography/ Computerized Tomography Compared to Histological Correlation of Pelvic Lymph Node Pathology. J Urol 2019; 201:815-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000053
11. Szigeti F, Schweighofer-Zwink G, Meissnitzer M, et al. Incremental Impact of (68 Ga)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in Primary N and M Staging of Prostate Cancer Prior to Curative-Intent Surgery: a Prospective Clinical Trial in Comparison with mpMRI. Mol Imaging Biol 2022; 24:50-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-021-01650-9
12. Franklin A, Yaxley WJ, Raveenthiran S, et al. Histological comparison between predictive value of preoperative 3-T multiparametric MRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan for pathological outcomes at radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2021; 127:71-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15134
13. Pienta KJ, Gorin MA, Rowe SP, et al. A Phase 2/3 Prospective Multicenter Study of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT with 18F-DCFPyL in Prostate Cancer Patients (OSPREY). J Urol 2021; 206:52-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001698
14. Arslan A, Karaarslan E, Güner AL, et al. Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Multiparametric Prostate MRI Versus 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT in the Evaluation Lymph Node Involvement and Extraprostatic Extension. Acad Radiol 2022; 29:698-704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.07.011
15. Tang Y, Ji X, Lin Q, et al. Status of 18F-PSMA-1007-PET/CT compared with multiparametric MRI in preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer. World J Urol 2023; 41:1017-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04345-8
16. Maestroni UV, Campobasso D, Guarino G, et al. Lymph node staging with 68Ga-PSMA PET in patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer suitable for radical prostatectomy managed in a prostate cancer unit. Chin Clin Oncol 2023; 12:22-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/cco-23-10
17. Xiong Z, Ge Y, Ma S, et al. Comparing the diagnostic value of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT and multiparametric MRI in pelvic lymph node metastasis of locally advanced prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2024; 13:1219-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-24-15
18. Pepe L, Fiorentino V, Curduman M, et al. PSMA PET/CT Accuracy in Diagnosing Prostate Cancer Nodes Metastases. In Vivo (Brooklyn) 2024; 38:2880-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13769
19. Dinckal M, Ergun KE, Kalemci MS, et al. Head-to-head comparison of GA-68 PSMA PET/CT and multiparametric MRI findings with postoperative results in preoperative locoregional staging and localization of prostate cancer. Prostate 2025; 85:48-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24799
20. Arena P, Fasulo V, Gelardi F, et al. An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of (68Ga)Ga-PSMA-11 vs. (18F)F-PSMA- 1007 PET/CT for Lymph Node Staging in Patient Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Institutional Analysis. Diagnostics 2025; 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15121492
21. Eraky A, Tillu N, Ben-David R, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of (18 F)-DCFPyL Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography in Intermediate- Risk Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy: Is Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Still Necessary? J Urol 2025; 214:365-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004659
22. Talavera Cobo V, Yánez Ruiz CA, Tapia Tapia MD, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT vs. mpMRI in Primary Staging of Intermediate- and High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Med Sci (Basel) 2026;14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci14010064
23. Daouacher G, Carlsson J, Voulgarakis N, et al. Diagnostic performance of conventional MRI using T1W and T2W for primary lymph node staging in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients prior to pelvic lymph node dissection. Abdominal Radiology 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-025-05073-w
24. Rosales JJ, Betech Antar V, Mínguez F, et al. Comparison of staging using (68Ga)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and histopathological results in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Revista Española de Medicina Nuclear e Imagen Molecular (English Edition) 2025; 44:500076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.remnie.2024.500076
25. Gultekin MH, Demirci E, Turegun FA, et al. The Role of 68GAPSMA PET/CT Scan In Patients with Prostate Adenocarcinoma who Underwent Radical Prostatectomy. Urol J 2020; 18:58-65.
26. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Cassarino G, et al. PET/MRI in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48:859-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05025-0
27. Li C, Hu J, Zhang Z, et al. Biparametric MRI of the prostate radiomics model for prediction of pelvic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancers: a two-centre study. BMC Med Imaging 2024; 24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-024-01372-8
28. Madendere S, Kılıç M, Gürses B, et al. Can the Briganti 2019 nomogram be modified to predict lymph node metastasis risk in patients with prostate cancer detected with in-bore biopsy? Int J Urol 2024; 31:1269-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.15553
29. Chikatamarla VA, Okano S, Jenvey P, et al. Risk of metastatic disease using (18F)PSMA-1007 PET/CT for primary prostate cancer staging. EJNMMI Res 2021; 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-021-00869-5
30. Barbosa ÁRG, Amaral BS, Lourenço DB, et al. Accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT and PET-MRI in lymph node staging for localized prostate cancer. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 2022; 20:eAO6599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2022AO6599
31. Lin Y, Johnson LA, Fennessy FM, Turkbey B. Prostate Cancer Local Staging with Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2024; 62:93-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2023.06.010
Ethics Approval
CRediT authorship contribution
EU: Conceptualisation, methodology, literature search, study selection, data extraction, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, manuscript drafting, and manuscript revision; SA: Independent study screening, data extraction, interpretation of results, and manuscript revision; LO: Data verification, interpretation of results, and manuscript revision; RD: Methodological supervision, interpretation of results, critical review of the manuscript, and manuscript revision; MU: Literature review, manuscript editing, manuscript revision and critical review of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript
Supporting Agencies
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.