Pirads 2.0: What is new?

Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 382-384

  Turkbey, Baris ^a   Choyke, Peter L ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EUROPEAN UNION; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; STANDARDS;

EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84940368389     PISSN: 13053825     EISSN: 13053612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5152/dir.2015.15099     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2015. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2015.
2. Miller AB. New data on prostate cancer mortality after PSA screening. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1047-1048. [CrossRef]
3. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. Radiology 2010; 255:89-99. [CrossRef]
4. Soylu FN, Eggener S, Oto A. Local staging of prostate cancer with MRI. Diagn Interv Radiol 2012; 18:365-373.
5. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:746-757. [CrossRef]
6. Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 67:1112-1121. [CrossRef]
7. Schimmöller 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. [CrossRef]
8. Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M, Rouvière O. Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at mul- tiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2014; 272:446-455. [CrossRef]
9. Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scoring system: multi parametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 2015; 275:458-468. [CrossRef]
10. Baur AD, Maxeiner A, Franiel T, et al. Evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of targeted biopsy of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2014; 49:411-420. [CrossRef]
11. Junker D, Quentin M, Nagele U, et al. Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for mpMRI of the prostate: a whole-mount step-section analysis. World J Urol 2015; 33:1023-1030.
12. Hansford BG, Peng Y, Jiang Y, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis: is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone? Radiology 2015; 275:448-457. [CrossRef]