The Frequency of Incidental Findings in Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Methods: This retrospective study reviewed the mpMRI examinations of 532 patients. Incidental findings were identified and categorized as genitourinary or extragenitourinary, and further classified as clinically significant or non-significant. The prevalence and characteristics of incidental findings were analyzed and compared between two age groups (≤65 and >65 years).
Results: Of the 532 patients, 243 (45.7%) had at least one incidental finding, for a total of 275 findings. The majority (94.9%) were clinically non-significant, with bladder wall thickening (n=58) and fat-containing inguinal hernias (n=40) being the most common. Fourteen findings (5.1%) were deemed clinically significant, including bladder carcinoma (n=3), iliac artery aneurysm (n=2), and rectal cancer (n=1). The prevalence of incidental findings was significantly higher in patients aged >65 years compared to those ≤65 years (51.6% vs. 37.2%, P=0.001), although there was no significant difference in the rate of clinically significant findings between the age groups (P=0.128).
Conclusions: Incidental findings are frequently detected in prostate mpMRI, occurring in nearly half of patients. Although most are benign, a small but important proportion (5.1%) are clinically significant and may impact patient management. These results underscore the necessity for radiologists to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the entire imaging field of view.
1. Raychaudhuri R, Lin DW, Montgomery RB. Prostate Cancer: A Review. JAMA. 2025;333(16):1433-1446. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.0228.
2. Triquell M, Campistol M, Celma A, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Predictive Models for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(19):4747. doi: 10.3390/cancers14194747.
3. Coskun M, Mehralivand S, Shih JH, et al. Impact of bowel preparation with Fleet's™ enema on prostate MRI quality. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45(12):4252-4259. doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02487-6.
4. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767-1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.
5. 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(3):340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
6. Sherrer RL, Lai WS, Thomas JV, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S. Incidental findings on multiparametric MRI performed for evaluation of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43(3):696-701. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1237-x.
7. Cutaia G, Tosto G, Cannella R, et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings on multiparametric prostate MRI. Radiol Med. 2020;125(2):204-213. doi: 10.1007/s11547-019-01106-9.
8. Rayn KN, Hale GR, Bloom JB, et al. Incidental bladder cancers found on multiparametric MRI of the prostate gland: a single center experience. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2018;24(5):316-320. doi: 10.5152/dir.2018.18102.
9. Emekli E, Gündoğdu E. Evaluation of the frequency of incidental findings and their clinical significance in multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging examination. Pol J Radiol. 2022;87:e409-e414. doi: 10.5114/pjr.2022.118312.
10. Ediz SS, Gunduz N. The Relationship between PI-RADS Categories and Incidental Findings in Multiparametric Prostate MRI. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2021;31(9):1030-1034. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2021.09.1030.
11. Wagnerova M, Macova I, Hanus P, et al. Quantification and significance of extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI: a retrospective analysis and three-tier classification. Insights Imaging. 2023;14(1):215. doi: 10.1186/s13244-023-01549-9.
12. Hoppe H, Studer R, Kessler TM, Vock P, Studer UE, Thoeny HC. Alternate or additional findings to stone disease on unenhanced computerized tomography for acute flank pain can impact management. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1725-1730; discussion 1730. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00987-0.
13. Samim M, Goss S, Luty S, Weinreb J, Moore C. Incidental findings on CT for suspected renal colic in emergency department patients: prevalence and types in 5,383 consecutive examinations. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(1):63-69. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.07.026.
14. van Vugt R, Dekker HM, Deunk J, et al. Incidental Findings on Routine Thoracoabdominal Computed Tomography in Blunt Trauma Patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(2):416-421. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182166b4b.
15. Bedel C, Korkut M, Erman K. Evaluation of incidental findings of whole body computed tomography in multiple trauma patients in emergency department. Ann Med Res. 2019;26(6):1075-1079. doi:10.5455/annalsmedres.2019.03.122.
16. Porões F, Karampa P, Sartoretti T, et al. Additional findings in prostate MRI. Cancer Imaging. 2025;25(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s40644-025-00846-4.
Copyright (c) 2026 The European Research Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Downloads
Article Information
- Article Type Research Article
- Submitted February 21, 2026
- Published January 4, 2026
- Issue Volume 12 - Issue 1 (January 2026)
- Section Research Article
