Usage of PI-RADS v2.1 system for prostate MRI: a practical approach
https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2019-3-107-125
Abstract
The detailed an alysis of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and American College of Radiology (ACR) guide-linesforprostatecancer MRI system PI-RADS v.2.1 (2019) was presented. The several scattered theses of this system were structured in suchsectionsas: MRI data acquisition, interpretation, definition of lesion category for prostate cancer probability. This kind of systematization would be helpful for radiologists to master this newest guide-lines version. Finally, the differences between PI-RADS v.2.1 and the previousone were highlighted.
About the Authors
A. I. Gromov
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov,
“Medsi group” Joint Stock Company
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
doct. of med. sci., Professor, Professor of Department of Radiology; Head of Radiology Department of Clinical hospital No.2
6/3, 2nd Botkinski pr., Moscow, 125284, Russia
Phone: +7-495-737-61-82 (42021)
V. V. Kapustin
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A. I. Evdokimov;
Moscow Municipal Oncology Hospital No.62 of Moscow Healthcare Department
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
doct. of med. sci., Associated Professor of Department of Radiology, Head of Ultrasound Diagnostics Department
Moscow
References
1. Weinreb J.C., Barentsz J.O., Choyke P.L., Cornud F., Haider M.A., Macura K.J., Margolis D., Schnall M.D., Shtern F., Tempany C.M., Thoeny H.C., Verma S. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69 (1): 16–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.
2. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R., Choyke P., Verma S., Villeirs G., Rouviere O., Logager V., Fütterer J.J.; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur. Radiol. 2012; 22 (4): 746–757. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.
3. Radtke J.P., Teber D., Hohenfellner M., Hadaschik B.A. The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2015; 3: 326–341. http://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2015.06.05.
4. Weinreb J.C., Barentsz J.O., Choyke P.L., Cornud F., Haider M.A., Macura K.J., Margolis D., Schnall M.D., Shtern F., Tempany C.M., Thoeny H.C., Verma S. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69 (1): 16–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.
5. Boesen L. Multiparametric MRI in detection and staging of prostate cancer. Dan. Med. J. 2017; 64 (2): B5327.
6. Radtke J.P., Teber D., Hohenfellner M., Hadaschik B.A. The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2015; 3: 326–341. http://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2015.06.05.
7. Monni F., Fontanella P., Grasso A., Wiklund P., Ou Y.C., Randazzo M., Rocco B., Montanari E., Bianchi G. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management: a systematic review. Minerva Urol. Nefrol. 2017; 69 (6): 567–578. http://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02819-3.
8. Boesen L. Multiparametric MRI in detection and staging of prostate cancer. Dan. Med. J. 2017; 64 (2): B5327.
9. Ahmed H.U., El-Shater Bosaily A., Brown L.C., Gabe R., Kaplan R., Parmar M.K., Collaco-Moraes Y., Ward K., Hindley R.G., Freeman A., Kirkham A.P., Oldroyd R., Parker C., Emberton M.; PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 25; 389 (10071): 815–822. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.
10. Monni F., Fontanella P., Grasso A., Wiklund P., Ou Y.C., Randazzo M., Rocco B., Montanari E., Bianchi G. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management: a systematic review. Minerva Urol. Nefrol. 2017; 69 (6): 567–578. http://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02819-3.
11. Brown L.C., Ahmed H.U., Faria R., El-Shater Bosaily A., Gabe R., Kaplan R.S., Parmar M., Collaco-Moraes Y., Ward K., Hindley R.G., Freeman A., Kirkham A., Oldroyd R., Parker C., Bott S., Burns-Cox N., Dudderidge T., Ghei M., Henderson A., Persad R., Rosario D.J., Shergill I., Winkler M., Soares M., Spackman E., Sculpher M., Emberton M. Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasoundguided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study. Health Technol. Assess. 2018; 22 (39): 1–176. http://doi.org/10.3310/hta22390.
12. Ahmed H.U., El-Shater Bosaily A., Brown L.C., Gabe R., Kaplan R., Parmar M.K., Collaco-Moraes Y., Ward K., Hindley R.G., Freeman A., Kirkham A.P., Oldroyd R., Parker C., Emberton M.; PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 25; 389 (10071): 815–822. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.
13. Guidelines of European Association of Urology https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/?type=summaryof-changes.
14. Brown L.C., Ahmed H.U., Faria R., El-Shater Bosaily A., Gabe R., Kaplan R.S., Parmar M., Collaco-Moraes Y., Ward K., Hindley R.G., Freeman A., Kirkham A., Oldroyd R., Parker C., Bott S., Burns-Cox N., Dudderidge T., Ghei M., Henderson A., Persad R., Rosario D.J., Shergill I., Winkler M., Soares M., Spackman E., Sculpher M., Emberton M. Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasoundguided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study. Health Technol. Assess. 2018; 22 (39): 1–176. http://doi.org/10.3310/hta22390.
15. Kesch C., Radtke J.P., Distler F., Boxler S., Klein T., Hüttenbrink C., Hees K., Roth W., Roethke M., Schlemmer H.P., Hohenfellner M., Hadaschik B.A. Multiparametric MRI and MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in patients with prior negative prostate biopsy. Urologe A. 2016; 55 (8): 1071–1077. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-016-0093-6.
16. Guidelines of European Association of Urology https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/?type=summaryof-changes.
17. Rifkin M.D., Dähnert W., Kurtz A.B. State of the art: endorectal sonography of the prostate gland. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1990; 154 (4): 691–700.
18. Kesch C., Radtke J.P., Distler F., Boxler S., Klein T., Hüttenbrink C., Hees K., Roth W., Roethke M., Schlemmer H.P., Hohenfellner M., Hadaschik B.A. Multiparametric MRI and MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in patients with prior negative prostate biopsy. Urologe A. 2016; 55 (8): 1071–1077. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-016-0093-6.
19. Coakley F.V., Hricak H. Radiologic anatomy of the prostate gland: a clinical approach. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2000; 38 (1): 15–30.
20. Rifkin M.D., Dähnert W., Kurtz A.B. State of the art: endorectal sonography of the prostate gland. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1990; 154 (4): 691–700.
21. McNeal J.E. The Zonal Anatomy of the Prostate. The Prostate. 1981; 2: 35–49.
22. Coakley F.V., Hricak H. Radiologic anatomy of the prostate gland: a clinical approach. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2000; 38 (1): 15–30.
23. McNeal J.E. The Zonal Anatomy of the Prostate. The Prostate. 1981; 2: 35–49.
Review
For citations:
Gromov A.I., Kapustin V.V. Usage of PI-RADS v2.1 system for prostate MRI: a practical approach. Medical Visualization. 2019;(3):107-125. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2019-3-107-125
Views:
2751
Email this article 