Review Article
PI-RADS: Past, present, and future
Rajan T. Gupta MD,
Kurren A. Mehta BS,
Baris Turkbey MD,
Sadhna Verma MD,
Corresponding Author
Rajan T. Gupta MD
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Department of Surgery, Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Address reprint requests to: R.T.G., Duke University Medical Center, Department of Radiology, DUMC Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorKurren A. Mehta BS
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBaris Turkbey MD
National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSadhna Verma MD
Cincinnati Veterans Hospital, University of Cincinnati Cancer Institute, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Search for more papers by this authorRajan T. Gupta MD,
Kurren A. Mehta BS,
Baris Turkbey MD,
Sadhna Verma MD,
Corresponding Author
Rajan T. Gupta MD
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Department of Surgery, Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Address reprint requests to: R.T.G., Duke University Medical Center, Department of Radiology, DUMC Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorKurren A. Mehta BS
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBaris Turkbey MD
National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSadhna Verma MD
Cincinnati Veterans Hospital, University of Cincinnati Cancer Institute, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Search for more papers by this authorThe first two authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is extremely prevalent and is the most common noncutaneous malignancy and second-most common cause of cancer death in men. In the last decade, there has been dramatic growth in the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for diagnosis and characterization of PCa. With the recent and marked surge in popularity in prostate imaging and, specifically, mpMRI, there has been an increased focus on structured reporting as a means by which to provide more actionable information to the referring clinician as well as to improve diagnostic performance with this technique. This work focuses on the evolution of the major structured reporting system in prostate mpMRI, Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS), from its initial proposal and establishment in 2012 as PI-RADS v. 1 to its most current iteration, PI-RADS v. 2.1. This will highlight the key elements that have changed between the versions as well as provide context and rationale for these changes. In addition, this work explores what future iterations of PI-RADS could look like based on current limitations of the system as well as explore areas for future growth of prostate mpMRI, including use of the system in active surveillance populations and in the posttreatment setting.
Level of Evidence: 5
Technical Efficacy: Stage 5
J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:33–53.
References
- 1Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 7–30.
- 2Wallis CJD, Haider MA, Nam RK. Role of mpMRI of the prostate in screening for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6: 464–471.
- 3Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 621–626.
- 4Holtz JN, Silverman RK, Tay KJ, et al. New prostate cancer prognostic grade group (PGG): Can multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) accurately separate patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-grade cancer? Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43: 702–712.
- 5Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390–397.
- 6Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 100–109.
- 7Cramer JA, Eisenmenger LB, Pierson NS, Dhatt HS, ME H. Structured and templated reporting: An overview. Appl Radiol 2014; 43(8): 18–21.
- 8Spak DA, Plaxco JS, Santiago L, Dryden MJ, Dogan BE. BI-RADS® fifth edition: A summary of changes. Diag Interv Imaging 2017; 98: 179–190.
- 9Smith CP, Turkbey B. PI-RADS v2: Current standing and future outlook. Turk J Urol 2018; 44: 189–194.
- 10Hamoen EHJ, 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.
- 11Rosenkrantz 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.
- 12Westphalen AC, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS): Reflections on early experience with a standardized interpretation scheme for multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 202: 121–123.
- 13Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Validation of the dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS version 2. Radiology 2017; 285: 859–869.
- 14Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, Trachtenberg J, Wilson BC, Haider MA. 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.
- 15Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D, et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: Detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2013; 266: 207–217.
- 16Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL. PI-RADS version 2: What you need to know. Clin Radiol 2015; 70: 1165–1176.
- 17Gupta RT, Spilseth B, Froemming AT. How and why a generation of radiologists must be trained to accurately interpret prostate mpMRI. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41: 803–804.
- 18Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16–40.
- 19Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746–757.
- 20Jung SI, Jeon HJ, Park HS, et al. Multiparametric MR imaging of peripheral zone prostate cancer: Effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on cancer detection according to Gleason score and tumour volume. Br J Radiol 2018; 91: 20180001.
- 21Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS. Radiologist, be aware: Ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 109–120.
- 22Sarradin M, Lepiney C, Celhay O, et al. Estimating minimum period of time to perform prostate MRI after prostate biopsy: Clinical and histological bleeding risk factors; from a prospective study. Prog Urol 2018; 28: 85–93.
- 23Sheridan AD, Nath SK, Syed JS, et al. Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer associated with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 (equivocal) lesions identified on multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 210: 347–357.
- 24Rosenkrantz 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: 1179–1183.
- 25Becker AS, Cornelius A, Reiner CS, et al. Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 1 regarding interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2017; 94: 58–63.
- 26Spektor M, Mathur M, Weinreb JC. Standards for MRI reporting-the evolution to PI-RADS v 2.0. Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6: 355–367.
- 27Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 1125–1131.
- 28Auer T, Edlinger M, Bektic J, et al. Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World J Urol 2017; 35: 687–693.
- 29Haas M, Gunzel K, Penzkofer T, et al. Implications of PI-RADS version 1 and updated version 2 on the scoring of prostatic lesions in multiparametric MRI. Aktuelle Urol 2016; 47: 383–387.
- 30Zhai L, Fan Y, Meng Y, Feng X, Yu W, Jin J. The role of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score in Gleason 3 + 3 active surveillance candidates enrollment: A diagnostic meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019; 22: 235–243.
- 31Rastinehad AR, Waingankar N, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of multiparametric MRI scoring systems and the impact on cancer detection in patients undergoing MR US fusion guided prostate biopsies. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0143404.
- 32Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 177–188.
- 33Zhang L, Tang M, Chen S, Lei X, Zhang X, Huan Y. A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 5204–5214.
- 34Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 726–731.
- 35Muller 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.
- 36Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: A multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016; 280: 793–804.
- 37Garcia-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.
- 38Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, et al. The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: Self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208: W92–w100.
- 39Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Interreader variability of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 in detecting and assessing prostate cancer lesions at prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 212: 1197–1205.
- 40Shaish H, Feltus W, Steinman J, Hecht E, Wenske S, Ahmed F. Impact of a structured reporting template on adherence to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 and on the diagnostic performance of prostate MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2018; 15: 749–754.
- 41Feng ZY, Wang L, Min XD, Wang SG, Wang GP, Cai J. Prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1 versus version 2. Chin Med J (Engl) 2016; 129: 2451–2459.
- 42Wang X, Bao J, Ping X, et al. The diagnostic value of PI-RADS V1 and V2 using multiparametric MRI in transition zone prostate clinical cancer. Oncol Lett 2018; 16: 3201–3206.
- 43Tewes S, Mokov N, Hartung D, et al. Standardized reporting of prostate MRI: comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 and version 2. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0162879.
- 44Sackett J, Choyke PL, Turkbey B. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 for MRI of prostate cancer: Can we do better? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 212: 1244–1252.
- 45An JY, Harmon SA, Mehralivand S, et al. Evaluating the size criterion for PI-RADSv2 category 5 upgrade: Is 15 mm the best threshold? Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43: 3436–3444.
- 46Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011; 185: 121–125.
- 47Esses SJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Imaging facilities' adherence to PI-RADS v2 minimum technical standards for the performance of prostate MRI. Acad Radiol 2018; 25: 188–195.
- 48Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, et al. Normal central zone of the prostate and central zone involvement by prostate cancer: Clinical and MR imaging implications. Radiology 2012; 262: 894–902.
- 49Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 385–396.
- 50Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih JH, et al. Prospective evaluation of PI-RADS version 2 using the International Society of Urological Pathology Prostate Cancer Grade Group System. J Urol 2017; 198: 583–590.
- 51Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, et al. Prospective evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 2016; 196: 690–696.
- 52Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. 2019 (in press) https://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(19)30180-0/pdf doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurouro.2019.02.033.
- 53Turkbey B, Huang R, Vourganti S, et al. Age-related changes in prostate zonal volumes as measured by high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): A cross-sectional study in over 500 patients. BJU Int 2012; 110: 1642–1647.
- 54Rosenkrantz AB, Padhani AR, Chenevert TL, et al. Body diffusion kurtosis imaging: Basic principles, applications, and considerations for clinical practice. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42: 1190–1202.
- 55Ream 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 2017; 45: 1464–1475.
- 56Boesen L, Norgaard N, Logager V, et al. Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men: The Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer (BIDOC) Study. JAMA Netw Open 2018; 1:e180219.
- 57Jambor I, Boström PJ, Taimen P, et al. Novel biparametric MRI and targeted biopsy improves risk stratification in men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (IMPROD Trial). J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 46: 1089–1095.
- 58Cuocolo R, Stanzione A, Rusconi G, et al. PSA-density does not improve bi-parametric prostate MR detection of prostate cancer in a biopsy naïve patient population. Eur J Radiol 2018; 104: 64–70.
- 59Krishna S, McInnes M, Lim C, et al. Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System versions 1 and 2 for the detection of peripheral zone Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209: W365–W373.
- 60Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM. Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: Impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 2017; 283: 119–129.
- 61Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prostate Cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2019; 17: 479–505.
- 62Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram N, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 2012; 188: 2152–2157.
- 63Nordstrom T, Akre O, Aly M, Gronberg H, Eklund M. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018; 21: 57–63.
- 64Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 2017; 198: 575–582.
- 65Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JGR, et al. Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018; 73: 353–360.
- 66Hofbauer SL, Maxeiner A, Kittner B, et al. Validation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2018; 200: 767–773.
- 67Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, et al. PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 2019; 182946.
- 68Obmann VC, Pahwa S, Tabayayong W, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a rapid biparametric MRI protocol for detection of histologically proven prostate cancer. Urology 2018; 122: 133–138.
- 69Scialpi M, Prosperi E, D'Andrea A, et al. Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI with non-endorectal coil at 3T in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 2017; 37: 1263–1271.
- 70Van Nieuwenhove S, Saussez TP, Thiry S, et al. Prospective comparison of a fast 1.5-T biparametric with the 3.0-T multiparametric ESUR magnetic resonance imaging protocol as a triage test for men at risk of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2019; 123: 411–420.
- 71Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Kramer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology 2017; 285: 493–505.
- 72Taghipour M, Ziaei A, Alessandrino F, et al. Investigating the role of DCE-MRI, over T2 and DWI, in accurate PI-RADS v2 assessment of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate lesions as defined at radical prostatectomy. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44: 1520–1527.
- 73Liauw SL, Pitroda SP, Eggener SE, et al. Evaluation of the prostate bed for local recurrence after radical prostatectomy using endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85: 378–384.
- 74Muller BG, Kaushal A, Sankineni S, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion-assisted biopsy for the diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 425.e421–425.e426.
- 75Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: Risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 2018; 199: 683–690.
- 76Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815–822.
- 77Ma TM, Tosoian JJ, Schaeffer EM, et al. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 174–180.
- 78Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, et al. Can radiologic staging with multiparametric MRI enhance the accuracy of the Partin Tables in predicting organ-confined prostate cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 87–95.
- 79Henderson DR, de Souza NM, Thomas K, et al. Nine-year follow-up for a study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in a prospective prostate cancer active surveillance cohort. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 1028–1033.
- 80Bratan F, Melodelima C, Souchon R, et al. How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume? Radiology 2015; 275: 144–154.
- 81Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 627–636.
- 82Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH, et al. Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18: 288–296.
- 83Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Holtz J, et al. Does mpMRI improve clinical criteria in selecting men with prostate cancer for active surveillance? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 20: 323–327.
- 84Nassiri N, Margolis DJ, Natarajan S, et al. Targeted biopsy to detect Gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low versus intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 197(3 Pt 1): 632–639.
- 85Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, et al. Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 202.e201–202.e207.
10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.01.023 Google Scholar
- 86Frye TP, George AK, Kilchevsky A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy to detect progression in patients with existing lesions on active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 197(3 Pt 1): 640–646.
- 87Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 275–281.
- 88Recabal P, Assel M, Sjoberg DD, et al. The efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in risk classification for patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2016; 196: 374–381.
- 89Giganti F, Allen C, Piper JW, et al. Sequential prostate MRI reporting in men on active surveillance: Initial experience of a dedicated PRECISE software program. Magn Reson Imaging 2019; 57: 34–39.
- 90Almeida GL, Petralia G, Ferro M, et al. Role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance image and PIRADS score in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance according PRIAS criteria. Urol Int 2016; 96: 459–469.
- 91Yim JH, Kim CK, Kim JH. Clinically insignificant prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active surveillance criteria: Utility of PI-RADS v2. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 47: 1072–1079.
- 92Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: A population-based study. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1647–1654.
- 93Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Carter T, et al. A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012; 110: 812–820.
- 94Elkjaer MC, Andersen MH, Hoyer S, Pedersen BG, Borre M. Prostate cancer: In-bore magnetic resonance guided biopsies at active surveillance inclusion improve selection of patients for active treatment. Acta Radiol 2018; 59: 619–626.
- 95Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013; 119: 3359–3366.
- 96Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 2013; 111: 1037–1045.
- 97Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: A prospective cohort study. J Urol 2012; 187: 1247–1252.
- 98Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: Do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol 2014; 192: 385–390.
- 99Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, et al. A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41: 220–225.
- 100Jordan EJ, Fiske C, Zagoria R, Westphalen AC. PI-RADS v2 and ADC values: Is there room for improvement? Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43: 3109–3116.
- 101Polanec SH, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient derived from diffusion-weighted imaging has the potential to avoid unnecessary MRI-guided biopsies of mpMRI-detected PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. Invest Radiol 2018; 53: 736–741.
- 102Shaish H, Kang SK, Rosenkrantz AB. The utility of quantitative ADC values for differentiating high-risk from low-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017; 42: 260–270.
- 103Gaur S, Harmon S, Rosenblum L, et al. Can apparent diffusion coefficient values assist PI-RADS version 2 DWI scoring? A correlation study using the PI-RADSv2 and International Society of Urological Pathology Systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 211: W33–w41.
- 104Chen T, Li M, Gu Y, et al. Prostate cancer differentiation and aggressiveness: Assessment with a radiomic-based model vs. PI-RADS v2. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019; 49: 875–884.
- 105Greer MD, Lay N, Shih JH, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: An international multi-reader study. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 4407–4417.
- 106Gaur S, Lay N, Harmon SA, et al. Can computer-aided diagnosis assist in the identification of prostate cancer on prostate MRI? a multi-center, multi-reader investigation. Oncotarget 2018; 9: 33804–33817.
- 107Song Y, Zhang YD, Yan X, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer using a deep convolutional neural network from multiparametric MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 48: 1570–1577.
