Validation of PI-RADS v.2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 44, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 1354-1359

  Baldisserotto, Matteo ^a   Neto, Eurico J Dornelles ^a   Carvalhal, Gustavo ^a   de Toledo, Aloyso F ^a   de Almeida, Clovis M ^a   Cairoli, Carlos E D ^a   de Silva, Daniel O ^a   Carvalhal, Eduardo ^a   Paganin, Ricardo P ^a   Agra, Alexandre ^a   de Santos, Francisco S ^a   Noronha, Jorge A P ^a  

^a PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL   (Brazil)

Author keywords

magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer; scoring method; validation studies

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT; EXTERNAL PHASED ARRAY COIL; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VALIDATION PROCESS; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DEVICES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVALUATION STUDY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROSTATE TUMOR; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; TRANSDUCER; VALIDATION STUDY; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INTERNATIONALITY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSDUCERS;

EID: 84991404512     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25284     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:277–300.
2. Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, et al. Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:1443–1448.
3. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746–757.
4. 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.
5. Bomers JG, Barentsz JO. Standardization of multiparametric prostate MR imaging using PI-RADS. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:431680.
6. American College of Radiology. PIRADS v2. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2014.
7. Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, et al. Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2015;277:741–750.
8. Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA, et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 2015. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6
9. Garcia-Reyes K, Passoni NM, Palmeri ML, et al. Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:134–142.
10. Puech P, Sufana Iancu A, Renard B, Villers A, Lemaitre L. Detecting prostate cancer with MRI - why and how. Diagn Interv Imaging 2012;93:268–278.
11. Torricelli P, Cinquantini F, Ligabue G, Bianchi G, Sighinolfi P, Romagnoli R. Comparative evaluation between external phased array coil at 3 T and endorectal coil at 1.5 T: preliminary results. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:355–361.
12. Maio A, Rifkin MD. Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: update. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1995;7:54–68.
13. Jager GJ, Ruijter ET, van de Kaa CA, et al. Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: correlation with histopathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:845–852.
14. Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR, de La Rosette JJ, Ruijs SH, Barentsz JO. Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used?--a decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000;215:445–451.
15. Beyersdorff D, Taymoorian K, Knosel T, et al. MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1214–1220.
16. Sosna J, Pedrosa I, Dewolf WC, Mahallati H, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM. MR imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: comparison of an external phased-array coil to imaging with an endorectal coil at 1.5 Tesla. Acad Radiol 2004;11:857–862.
17. Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Comparison of phased-array 3.0T and endorectal 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:534–538.