CME Article
PI-RADSv2: How we do it
Matthew D. Greer BS,
Peter L. Choyke MD,
Baris Turkbey MD,
Matthew D. Greer BS
Molecular Imaging Program, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Search for more papers by this authorPeter L. Choyke MD
Molecular Imaging Program, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Baris Turkbey MD
Molecular Imaging Program, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Address reprint requests to: B.T., 10 Center Dr., Rm. B3B85, Bethesda MD 20892. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMatthew D. Greer BS,
Peter L. Choyke MD,
Baris Turkbey MD,
Matthew D. Greer BS
Molecular Imaging Program, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Search for more papers by this authorPeter L. Choyke MD
Molecular Imaging Program, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Baris Turkbey MD
Molecular Imaging Program, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Address reprint requests to: B.T., 10 Center Dr., Rm. B3B85, Bethesda MD 20892. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorPublished 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA
Abstract
Much criticism has been leveled at screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, yet there is no suitable replacement to improve the detection of clinically significant cancer (CSC). Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) combined with mpMRI-guided biopsies is one possible solution, as it reduces detection of low-grade disease and increases detection of CSC. However, mpMRI is critically limited by lack of standardization across institutions and low interobserver agreement. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Diagnostic System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) aims to address these concerns. We discuss the clinical and technical considerations for implementing PI-RADSv2, how we have adapted to PI-RADSv2, and review current research. While PI-RADSv2 represents a major step forward for standardizing prostate mpMRI, it does not provide a level of standardization that is routine with clinical blood tests and reader reproducibility remains an issue. Future research should seek to further improve quality assurance of mpMRI building on the important contributions of PI-RADSv2.
Level of Evidence: 5
Technical Efficacy: Stage 2
J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;46:11–23
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| jmri25645-sup-0001-suppinfo.tif11.4 MB | Supporting Information |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- 1 Society AC. Cancer Facts & Figures 2015. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society 2015.
- 2 Serefoglu EC, Altinova S, Ugras NS, Akincioglu E, Asil E, Balbay MD. How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7: E293–298.
- 3 Siddiqui 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.
- 4 Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1250–1261.
- 5 Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 846–853.
- 6 Quintana L, Ward A, Gerrin SJ, et al. Gleason misclassification rate is independent of number of biopsy cores in systematic biopsy. Urology 2016; 91: 143–149.
- 7 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: 512–517.
- 8 de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 233–245.
- 9 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.
- 10 Vache T, Bratan F, Mege-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M, Rouviere 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: 446–455.
- 11 Ruprecht O, Weisser P, Bodelle B, Ackermann H, Vogl TJ. MRI of the prostate: Interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 456–460.
- 12 Radiology ACo. MR Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0. 2015.
- 13 Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 41–49.
- 14 Turkbey B, Choyke PL. PIRADS 2.0: what is new? Diagn Intervent Radiol (Ankara, Turkey) 2015; 21: 382–384.
- 15 Martino P, Scattoni V, Galosi AB, et al. Role of imaging and biopsy to assess local recurrence after definitive treatment for prostate carcinoma (surgery, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, HIFU). World J Urol 2011; 29: 595–605.
- 16
Mertan FV,
Greer MD,
Borofsky S, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Recurrent Prostate Cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 25: 135–147.
10.1097/RMR.0000000000000088 Google Scholar
- 17 Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Gianduzzo T, et al. The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer. Pathology 2015; 47: 515–519.
- 18 Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 244–252.
- 19 Shakir NA, George AK, Siddiqui MM, et al. Identification of threshold prostate specific antigen levels to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy. J Urol 2014; 192: 1642–1648.
- 20 Sharif-Afshar AR, Feng T, Koopman S, et al. Impact of post prostate biopsy hemorrhage on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Can J Urol 2015; 22: 7698–7702.
- 21 Barrett T, Vargas HA, Akin O, Goldman DA, Hricak H. Value of the hemorrhage exclusion sign on T1-weighted prostate MR images for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 2012; 263: 751–757.
- 22 Rosenkrantz AB, Kopec M, Kong X, et al. Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 1387–1394.
- 23 Medved M, Sammet S, Yousuf A, Oto A. MR imaging of the prostate and adjacent anatomic structures before, during, and after ejaculation: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Radiology 2014; 271: 452–460.
- 24 Kabakus IM, Borofsky S, Mertan FV, et al. Does Abstinence From Ejaculation Before Prostate MRI Improve Evaluation of the Seminal Vesicles? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 1205–1209.
- 25 Rouviere O, Hartman RP, Lyonnet D. Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution? Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 276–284.
- 26 Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007; 31: 534–538.
- 27 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.
- 28 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.
- 29 Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R, et al. Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 2015; 22: 467–474.
- 30 Haider MA, Krieger A, Elliott C, Da Rosa MR, Milot L. Prostate imaging: evaluation of a reusable two-channel endorectal receiver coil for MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 2014; 270: 556–565.
- 31 Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T—comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 2007; 244: 184–195.
- 32 Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1055–1065.
- 33 Kim BS, Kim TH, Kwon TG, Yoo ES. Comparison of pelvic phased-array versus endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla for local staging of prostate cancer. Yonsei Med J 2012; 53: 550–556.
- 34 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.
- 35 Rosenkrantz AB, Mussi TC, Borofsky MS, Scionti SS, Grasso M, Taneja SS. 3.0 T multiparametric prostate MRI using pelvic phased-array coil: utility for tumor detection prior to biopsy. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 1430–1435.
- 36 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 2016; 26: 1606–1612.
- 37 Baur AD, Daqqaq T, Wagner M, et al. T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 1075–1084.
- 38 Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 168: 497–505.
- 39 Grant KB, Agarwal HK, Shih JH, et al. Comparison of calculated and acquired high b value diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40: 578–586.
- 40 Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011; 258: 488–495.
- 41 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: 453–461.
- 42 Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia (New York, NY) 2009; 11: 102–125.
- 43 Rosenkrantz AB, Kong X, Niver BE, et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of tumor visibility on trace diffusion-weighted images and the apparent diffusion coefficient map. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 123–129.
- 44 Rosenkrantz AB, Hindman N, Lim RP, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: Comparison of b1000 and b2000 image sets for index lesion detection. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 38: 694–700.
- 45 Wetter A, Nensa F, Lipponer C, et al. High and ultra-high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer: a quantitative analysis. Acta Radiol (Stockholm, Sweden: 1987) 2015; 56: 1009–1015.
- 46 Wang X, Qian Y, Liu B, et al. High-b-value diffusion-weighted MRI for the detection of prostate cancer at 3 T. Clin Radiol 2014; 69: 1165–1170.
- 47 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: 704–711.
- 48 Bittencourt LK, Attenberger UI, Lima D, et al. Feasibility study of computed vs. measured high b-value (1400 s/mm(2)) diffusion-weighted MR images of the prostate. World J Radiol 2014; 6: 374–380.
- 49 Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746–757.
- 50 Wolters 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.
- 51 Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European Consensus Meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 477–494.
- 52 Villers A, Lemaitre L, Haffner J, Puech P. Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 2009; 19: 274–282.
- 53 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: 142818.
- 54 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; 44: 1354–1359.
- 55 Kasel-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.
- 56 Lin WC, Muglia VF, Silva GE, Chodraui Filho S, Reis RB, Westphalen AC. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement of two scoring systems. Br J Radiol 2016: 20151056.
- 57 Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, et al. Prospective evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for Prostate Cancer Detection. J Urol 2016; 196: 690–696.
- 58 NiMhurchu E, O'Kelly F, Murphy IG, et al. Predictive value of PI-RADS classification in MRI-directed transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Clin Radiol 2016; 71: 375–380.
- 59 Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT, et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS Version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology 2016: 151133.
- 60 Polanec 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.
- 61 Rosenkrantz 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: 152542.
- 62 Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, et al. Combination of PI-RADS score and PSA density predicts biopsy outcome in biopsy naive patients. BJU Int 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
- 63 Woo S, Kim SY, Lee J, Kim SH, Cho JY. PI-RADS version 2 for prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason Score 7 (3+4) prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 3580–3687.
- 64 Zhao C, Gao G, Fang D, et al. The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging 2016; 40: 885–888.
- 65 Horn GL Jr, Hahn PF, Tabatabaei S, Harisinghani M. A practical primer on PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial essay. Abdom Radiol (New York) 2016.
- 66 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: 1–5.
- 67 Steiger P, Thoeny HC. Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging 2016; 16: 9.
- 68 Auer 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 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
- 69 Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2006; 239: 784–792.
- 70 Rud E, Baco E. Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging — reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16–40: Is contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging really necessary when searching for prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
- 71 Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, et al. Reply to Erik Rud and Eduard Baco's Letter to the Editor re: Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging — Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16–40.
- 72 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.
- 73 Iwazawa J, Mitani T, Sassa S, Ohue S. Prostate cancer detection with MRI: Is dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging necessary in addition to diffusion-weighted imaging? Diagnostic and Intervent Radiol 2011; 17: 243–248.
- 74 Haghighi M, Shah S, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging versus dynamic-contrast enhanced imaging for tumor localization—a meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013; 37: 980–988.
