Multiparametric MRI Approach to Prostate Cancer with a Pictorial Essay on PI-RADS

Abstract

The biology of prostate cancer is indolent, and incidence does not reflect mortality. This has led to reframed screening guidelines pivoting around serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and conceptualizing clinically significant prostate cancer (CSC), triaging active surveillance and intervention. A resultant paradigm shift in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from diagnosing cancer to focusing on detecting CSC led to the establishment of PI-RADS v2 (prostate imaging reporting and data systems, version 2). In this article, we present an approach to analyzing suspicious prostate lesions on multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) and assigning them a PI-RADS assessment score based on the current version 2 for standardized reporting, strengthening diagnostic accuracy, and improving clinical acceptance. We also present pitfalls and challenges that a radiologist should be aware of, for increasing diagnostic accuracy.

Keywords

multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging - PI-RADS - prostate cancer

• References

• 1 Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ. Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics 2011; 31 (03) 677-703
• 2 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Programme : Cancer Stat Facts: Prostate Cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html
• 3 Chen S-L, Wang S-C, Ho C-J. et al. Prostate cancer mortality-to-incidence ratios are associated with cancer care disparities in 35 countries. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 40003
• 4 Jain S, Saxena S, Kumar A. Epidemiology of prostate cancer in India. Meta Gene 2014; 2: 596-605
• 5 Hariharan K, Padmanabha V. Demography and disease characteristics of prostate cancer in India. Indian J Urol 2016; 32 (02) 103-108
• 6 Imaging P. PI-RADS^TM Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System. 2015
• 7 Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R. et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 60 (02) 291-303
• 8 Gordetsky J, Epstein J. Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications. Diagn Pathol 2016; 11 (01) 25
• 9 Chen N, Zhou Q. The evolving Gleason grading system. Chin J Cancer Res 2016; 28 (01) 58-64
• 10 Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C. et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 2013; 23 (07) 2019-2029
• 11 Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC. et al; PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389 10071 815-822
• 12 Patel P, Mathew MS, Trilisky I, Oto A. Multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate after treatment of prostate cancer. Radiographics 2018; 38 (02) 437-449
• 13 Coakley FV, Oto A, Alexander LF. et al; Expert Panel on Urologic Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Prostate Cancer—Pretreatment Detection, Surveillance, and Staging. J Am Coll Radiol 2017; 14 (5S) S245-S257
• 14 Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, Victor AD. et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Prostate Cancer. 2016
• 15 Fulgham PF, Rukstalis DB, Turkbey IB. et al. AUA policy statement on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 198 (04) 832-838
• 16 Selman SH. The McNeal prostate: a review. Urology 2011; 78 (06) 1224-1228
• 17 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 (01) 41-49
• 18 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 (02) 453-461
• 19 Jambor I. Optimization of prostate MRI acquisition and post-processing protocol: a pictorial review with access to acquisition protocols. Acta Radiol Open 2017; 6 (12) 2058460117745574
• 20 Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS. Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202 (01) 109-120
• 21 Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Bassett LW. et al. The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6 (12) 851-860
• 22 Rice TW, Gress DM, Patil DT, Hofstetter WL, Kelsen DP, Blackstone EH. Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 2017; 67 (04) 304-317
• 23 Panebianco V, Giganti F, Kitzing YX. et al. An update of pitfalls in prostate mpMRI: a practical approach through the lens of PI-RADS v. 2 guidelines. Insights Imaging 2018; 9 (01) 87-101
• 24 Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 67 (04) 627-636
• 25 Park BH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC. et al. Influence of magnetic resonance imaging in the decision to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles at robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2014; 192 (01) 82-88
• 26 American Urological Association (AUA). Consensus Statement: Prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsy. 2016 (April) 1-19
• 27 Panje C, Panje T, Putora PM. et al. Guidance of treatment decisions in risk-adapted primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a single center experience. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10: 47
• 28 Gürses B, Tasdelen N, Yencilek F. et al. Diagnostic utility of DTI in prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2011; 79 (02) 172-176
• 29 Maurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, Gschwend JE. Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol 2016; 13 (04) 226-235