Evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of targeted biopsy of the prostate

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 411-420

  Baur, Alexander D J ^a   Maxeiner, Andreas ^a   Franiel, Tobias ^a,b   Kilic, Ergin ^a   Huppertz, Alexander ^a   Schwenke, Carsten ^c   Hamm, Bernd ^a   Durmus, Tahir ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b JENA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Germany)

^c SCO:SSiS Statistical Consulting   (Germany)

Author keywords

magnetic resonance; MR imaging; multiparametric; PI RADS; Prostate cancer; reporting system

Indexed keywords

GADOBUTROL; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PICTURE ARCHIVING AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BIOPSY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; INTERVENTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETREATMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

AGED; BIOPSY; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, INTERVENTIONAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETREATMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84900470919     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000030     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:10-29.
2. Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, et al. Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1309-1322.
3. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261:46-66.
4. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with multi-parametric MRI: logistic regression analysis of quantitative T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:327-334.
5. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative findingVmultiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology. 2011;259:162-172.
6. Kobus T, Vos PC, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. Radiology. 2012;265:457-467.
7. Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T, et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol. 2013;64:448-455.
8. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol. 2012;61:177-184.
9. Somford DM, Hoeks CM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:152-157.
10. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37:48-58.
11. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746-757.
12. Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, et al. Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol. 2012;62:986-996.
13. Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al. Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:3185-3190.
14. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology. 2013;269:482-492.
15. Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B, et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology. 2005;234:576-581.
16. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242.
17. Rothke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP, et al. PI-RADS-Klassifikation: Strukturiertes Befundungsschema fur die MRT der Prostata. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2013;185:253-261.
18. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:323-328.
19. Wu LM, Xu JR, Ye YQ, et al. The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:103-110.
20. Noworolski SM, Vigneron DB, Chen AP, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR diffusion imaging to distinguish between glandular and stro-mal prostatic tissues. Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;26:1071-1080.
21. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int. 2011;107:1411-1418.
22. Hara N, Okuizumi M, Koike H, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is a useful modality for the precise detection and staging of early prostate cancer. Prostate. 2005;62:140-147.
23. Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Jones EC, et al. Combined diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer diagnosisVcorrelation with biopsy and histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24:108-113.
24. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:481-487.
25. Borren A, Moman MR, Groenendaal G, et al. Why prostate tumour delineation based on apparent diffusion coefficient is challenging: an exploration of the tissue microanatomy. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1629-1636.
26. Selnaes KM, Heerschap A, Jensen LR, et al. Peripheral zone prostate cancer localization by multiparametric magnetic resonance at 3 T: unbiased cancer identification by matching to histopathology. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:624-633.
27. Hoeks CM, Vos EK, Bomers JG, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the prostate transition zone: histopathological validation using magnetic resonance-guided biopsy specimens. Invest Radiol. 2013;48;693-701.
28. Hoeks CM, Somford DM, van Oort IM, et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol. 2014;49:165-172.