Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: Impact on prostate cancer detection

Radiology

Volumn 283, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 119-129

  Rosenkrantz, Andrew B ^a   Babb, James S ^a   Taneja, Samir S ^a   Ream, Justin M ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER SIZE; CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DWI SCORE; ECHOGRAPHY; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PI-RADS V2 SCORE; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE HYPERTROPHY; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE PROCESSING; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM; REPRODUCIBILITY;

CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 85017170189     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016161124     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011;261(1):46-66.
2. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69(1):16-40.
3. 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(3):741-750.
4. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PIRADS Version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016;280(3):793-804.
5. Baldisserotto M, Neto EJ, Carvalhal G, et al. Validation of PI-RADS v.2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016 Apr 26. [Epub ahead of print]
6. Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, et al. Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016 Jul 8. [Epub ahead of print]
7. Rosenkrantz AB, Lepor H, Huang WC, Taneja SS. Practical barriers to obtaining pre-biopsy prostate MRI: assessment in over 1500 consecutive men undergoing prostate biopsy in a single urologic practice. Urol Int 2016;97(2):247-248.
8. Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B, et al. Realtime MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg 2008;13(5):255-264.
9. Martin PR, Cool DW, Romagnoli C, Fenster A, Ward AD. Magnetic resonance imagingtargeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for prostate cancer: quantifying the impact of needle delivery error on diagnosis. Med Phys 2014;41(7):073504.
10. Rosenkrantz AB, Bennett GL, Doshi A, Deng FM, Babb JS, Taneja SS. T2-weighted imaging of the prostate: impact of the BLADE technique on image quality and tumor assessment. Abdom Imaging 2015;40(3):552-559.
11. Rosenkrantz AB, Khalef V, Xu W, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Doshi AM. Does normalisation improve the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values for prostate cancer assessment? a blinded independent-observer evaluation. Clin Radiol 2015;70(9):1032-1037.
12. Rosenkrantz AB, Shanbhogue AK, Wang A, Kong MX, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: assessment at an optimal threshold. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;43(4):990-997.
13. Rosenkrantz AB, Parikh N, Kierans AS, et al. Prostate cancer detection using computed very high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging: how high should we go? Acad Radiol 2016;23(6):704-711.
14. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusiontargeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies. Urology 2015;86(6):1192-1128.
15. Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol 2015;194(6):1601-1606.
16. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol 2016;69(3):512-517.
17. Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, et al. The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning vs continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol (in revision).
18. Ream JM, Doshi AM, Dunst D, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the prostate: an intraindividual assessment of the effect of temporal resolution on qualitative detection and quantitative analysis of histopathologically proven prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016 Sep 20. [Epub ahead of print]
19. Rosenkrantz AB, Chandarana H, Hindman N, et al. Computed diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 T: impact on image quality and tumour detection. Eur Radiol 2013;23(11):3170-3177.
20. Rosenkrantz AB, Geppert C, Grimm R, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the prostate with high spatiotemporal resolution using compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and continuous golden-angle radial sampling: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;41(5):1365-1373.
21. Riches SF, Payne GS, Morgan VA, et al. MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: combined apparent diffusion coefficient, metabolite ratio, and vascular parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(6):1583-1591.
22. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 2014;66(2): 343-351.
23. 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.
24. Vargas HA, Hötker 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 2016;26(6):1606-1612.
25. Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), Version 2: a critical look. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206(6):1179-1183.
26. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):746-757.
27. 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.
28. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Campbell N, Gaing B, Deng FM, Taneja SS. Transition zone prostate cancer: revisiting the role of multiparametric MRI at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204(3):W266-W272.
29. Elbuluk O, Muradyan N, Shih J, et al. Differentiating transition zone cancers from benign prostatic hyperplasia by quantitative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2016;40(2): 218-224.
30. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS Atlas. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/BIRADS. Accessed November 1, 2015.
31. American College of Radiology. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System. http://www.acr.org/quality-safety/resources/LIRADS. Accessed November 1, 2015.
32. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement of the American Urological Association and the Society of Abdominal Radiology's Prostate Cancer Disease Focused Panel. J Urol 2016 Jun 16. [Epub ahead of print]
33. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasoundfusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64(5):713-719.
34. Nassiri N, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Marks LS. Targeted prostate biopsy: lessons learned midst the evolution of a disruptive technology. Urology 2015;86(3):432-438.