Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers

Radiology

Volumn 280, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 108-116

  Park, Sung Yoon ^a   Jung, Dae Chul ^a   Oh, Young Taik ^a   Cho, Nam Hoon ^a   Choi, Young Deuk ^a   Rha, Koon Ho ^a   Hong, Sung Joon ^a   Han, Kyunghwa ^a  

^a Yonsei University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SIZE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SEMINAL VESICLE; TUMOR INVASION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AGED; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84975291051     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.16151133     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):746-757.
2. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015;68(6):1045-1053.
3. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate- specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):902- 909.
4. Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: A systematic review. Eur Urol 2015;68(1): 8-19.
5. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;68(3):438-450.
6. de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM, Grutters JP. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: A modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol 2014;66(3):430-436.
7. 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(2):482-492.
8. 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(6): 1112-1121.
9. Hoeks CM, Somford DM, van Oort IM, et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonanceguided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: A prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol 2014;49(3):165-172.
10. Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, et al. Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2014;24(2):344-352.
11. Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system and Likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 2015; 275(2):458-468.
12. American College of Radiology. PI-RADS v2. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PIRADS. Accessed January 10, 2015.
13. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271(5):368-374.
14. Van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2013;10(8): 473-482.
15. Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201(4):W612-W618.
16. Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M, Rouvière O. Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2014;272(2):446-455.
17. Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, et al. Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010;257(3): 715-723.
18. Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ. Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radio Graphics 2011;31(3): 677-703.
19. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, et al. Diffusion- weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: Tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011; 259(3):775-784.
20. 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(3): 448-455.
21. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011;259(2):453-461.
22. Hattori S, Kosaka T, Mizuno R, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2014;113(5):741-747.
23. Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YH, Lee HJ, Kim MJ, Choi MS. Low-risk prostate cancer: The accuracy of multiparametric MR imaging for detection. Radiology 2014;271(2):435-444.
24. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: A validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 2013;268(3):761-769.
25. Sarici H, Telli O, Yigitbasi O, et al. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients with prostate biopsy Gleason score 6. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8(5-6):E342-E346.
26. Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST, et al. Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (. or = 12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol 2009; 27(2):271-276.
27. Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM, Klein EA. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol 2008;179(3): 896-900; discussion 900.
28. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: Implication on outcome. J Urol 2006;176(3):979-984; discussion 984.
29. Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D, et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2013;266(1):207-217.
30. Lemaitre L, Puech P, Poncelet E, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Radiol 2009;19(2):470-480.
31. Pepe P, Panella P, Savoca F, et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of prostate cancer among 12, 682 men with normal digital rectal examination, low PSA levels (, or =4 ng/ml) and percent free PSA cutoff values of 15 and 20%. Urol Int 2007;78(4):308-312.
32. McGuire BB, Helfand BT, Loeb S, et al. Outcomes in patients with Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer: Relation to preoperative PSA level. BJU Int 2012;109(12):1764-1769.
33. 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(11):3185-3190.
34. Zaytoun OM, Stephenson AJ, Fareed K, et al. When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int 2012;110(7):987- 992.