Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Abdominal Radiology
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 7/2020

01-07-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Special Section: Male pelvis

Prostate MRI with PI-RADS v2.1: initial detection and active surveillance

Authors: Grace C. Lo, Daniel J. A. Margolis

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 7/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

The role of prostate MRI in clinical practice has continued to broaden over time. Multiple iterations of PI-RADS reporting have aided in improving detection and reporting of prostate cancer. In addition, recent recommendations from the PI-RADS Steering Committee promote an MRI-first approach with an MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. It is imperative for radiologists to be knowledgeable and familiar with prostate MRI and PI-RADS recommendations, as there is an increasing demand for prostate imaging by clinicians and patients alike.
Literature
1.
Oberlin, D.T., et al., Dramatic increase in the utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection and management of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2017. 42(4): p. 1255-1258.CrossRef
2.
Hricak, H., et al., Anatomy and pathology of the male pelvis by magnetic resonance imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1983. 141(6): p. 1101-10.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Rosenkrantz, A.B., et al., Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol, 2016. 196(6): p. 1613-1618.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Epstein, J.I., et al., 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(2): p. 244-52.
5.
Gjertson, C.K. and P.C. Albertsen, Use and assessment of PSA in prostate cancer. Med Clin North Am, 2011. 95(1): p. 191-200.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Albertsen, P.C., J.A. Hanley, and J. Fine, 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA, 2005. 293(17): p. 2095-101.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Albertsen, P.C., et al., Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA, 1998. 280(11): p. 975-80.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Johansson, J.E., et al., High 10-year survival rate in patients with early, untreated prostatic cancer. JAMA, 1992. 267(16): p. 2191-6.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Johansson, J.E., et al., Natural history of localised prostatic cancer. A population-based study in 223 untreated patients. Lancet, 1989. 1(8642): p. 799-803.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Johansson, J.E., et al., Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA, 2004. 291(22): p. 2713-9.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Johansson, J.E., et al., Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA, 1997. 277(6): p. 467-71.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Wilt, T.J., et al., Follow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med, 2017. 377(2): p. 132-142.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Hamdy, F.C., et al., 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med, 2016. 375(15): p. 1415-1424.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Eldefrawy, A., et al., Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: a cost comparison. Urol Oncol, 2013. 31(5): p. 576-80.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Egger, S.J., et al., Long-term Psychological and Quality-of-life Effects of Active Surveillance and Watchful Waiting After Diagnosis of Low-risk Localised Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol, 2018. 73(6): p. 859-867.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Aizer, A.A., et al., Cost implications and complications of overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2015. 13(1): p. 61-8.PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
Weinreb, J.C., et al., PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol, 2015.
19.
Turkbey, B., et al., Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol, 2019.
20.
Woo, S., et al., Head-to-Head Comparison Between Biparametric and Multiparametric MRI for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018. 211(5): p. W226-W241.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Greer, M.D., et al., Validation of the Dominant Sequence Paradigm and Role of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Imaging in PI-RADS Version 2. Radiology, 2017. 285(3): p. 859-869.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Rosenkrantz, A.B., et al., Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection. Radiology, 2017. 283(1): p. 119-129.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Krishna, S., 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(6): p. W365-W373.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Thompson, I.M., et al., Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med, 2004. 350(22): p. 2239-46.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Tabayoyong, W. and R. Abouassaly, Prostate Cancer Screening and the Associated Controversy. Surg Clin North Am, 2015. 95(5): p. 1023-39.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Carter, H.B., et al., Longitudinal evaluation of prostate-specific antigen levels in men with and without prostate disease. JAMA, 1992. 267(16): p. 2215-20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Karazanashvili, G. and P.A. Abrahamsson, Prostate specific antigen and human glandular kallikrein 2 in early detection of prostate cancer. J Urol, 2003. 169(2): p. 445-57.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Ohori, M., J.K. Dunn, and P.T. Scardino, Is prostate-specific antigen density more useful than prostate-specific antigen levels in the diagnosis of prostate cancer? Urology, 1995. 46(5): p. 666-71.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Washino, S., et al., Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naive patients. BJU Int, 2017. 119(2): p. 225-233.PubMedCrossRef
30.
D’Amico, A.V., et al., Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med, 2004. 351(2): p. 125-35.PubMedCrossRef
31.
D’Amico, A.V., et al., Predictors of mortality after prostate-specific antigen failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2006. 65(3): p. 656-60.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Ulmert, D., et al., Long-term prediction of prostate cancer: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity is predictive but does not improve the predictive accuracy of a single PSA measurement 15 years or more before cancer diagnosis in a large, representative, unscreened population. J Clin Oncol, 2008. 26(6): p. 835-41.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Bjurlin, M.A., et al., Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol, 2013. 189(6): p. 2039-46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Serefoglu, E.C., et al., How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J, 2013. 7(5-6): p. E293-8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Mufarrij, P., et al., Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology, 2010. 76(3): p. 689-92.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Duvnjak, P., et al., Multiparametric Prostate MR Imaging: Impact on Clinical Staging and Decision Making. Radiol Clin North Am, 2018. 56(2): p. 239-250.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zaytoun, O.M., et al., When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int, 2012. 110(7): p. 987-92.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Sonn, G.A., et al., Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol, 2014. 65(4): p. 809-15.PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
Siddiqui, M.M., et al., Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA, 2015. 313(4): p. 390-7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Vourganti, S., 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(6): p. 2152-2157.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Moore, C.M., et al., Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol, 2013. 63(1): p. 125-40.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Wegelin, O., et al., Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? Eur Urol, 2017. 71(4): p. 517-531.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Schoots, I.G., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol, 2015. 68(3): p. 438-50.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Rosenkrantz, A.B., et al., Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2010. 31(6): p. 1387-94.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Weinreb, J.C., et al., PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol, 2016. 69(1): p. 16-40.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Ahmed, H.U., et al., Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet, 2017. 389(10071): p. 815-822.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Stabile, A., et al., MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2018. 21(4): p. 473-487.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Padhani, A.R., et al., PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway. Radiology, 2019. 292(2): p. 464-474.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Rouvière, O., 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(1): p. 100-109.PubMedCrossRef
51.
van der Leest, M., et al., Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naive Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. Eur Urol, 2019. 75(4): p. 570-578.PubMedCrossRef
52.
De Visschere, P.J., et al., What kind of prostate cancers do we miss on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? Eur Radiol, 2016. 26(4): p. 1098-107.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Panebianco, V., et al., Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer: What’s Next? Eur Urol, 2018. 74(1): p. 48-54.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Kasivisvanathan, V., et al., MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med, 2018. 378(19): p. 1767-1777.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Pokorny, M.R., et al., Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol, 2014. 66(1): p. 22-9.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Filson, C.P., et al., Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer, 2016. 122(6): p. 884-92.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Mannaerts, C.K., et al., The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol, 2019.
58.
Bryk, D.J., et al., The Role of Ipsilateral and Contralateral Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men With Unilateral Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesion Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy. Urology, 2017. 102: p. 178-182.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Muthigi, A., et al., Missing the Mark: Prostate Cancer Upgrading by Systematic Biopsy over Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy. J Urol, 2017. 197(2): p. 327-334.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Calio, B.P., et al., Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology-Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help? J Urol, 2018. 199(4): p. 976-982.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Zhang, M., et al., Value of Increasing Biopsy Cores per Target with Cognitive MRI-targeted Transrectal US Prostate Biopsy. Radiology, 2019. 291(1): p. 83-89.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Faria, R., et al., Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). Eur Urol, 2018. 73(1): p. 23-30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
de Rooij, M., et al., Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol, 2014. 66(3): p. 430-6.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Klotz, L., Active surveillance for men with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer, in UpToDate, D. Savarese, Editor. 2019: UpToDate, Waltham, MA (accessed on August 1, 2019).
65.
Klotz, L., et al., Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2015. 33(3): p. 272-7.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Tran, G.N., et al., Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance. Eur Urol, 2017. 72(2): p. 275-281.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Ouzzane, A., et al., Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy Improves Selection of Patients Considered for Active Surveillance for Clinically Low Risk Prostate Cancer Based on Systematic Biopsies. J Urol, 2015. 194(2): p. 350-6.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Schoots, I.G., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol, 2015. 67(4): p. 627-36.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Da Rosa, M.R., 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(1): p. 220-5.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Stamatakis, L., et al., Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer, 2013. 119(18): p. 3359-66.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Futterer, J.J., et al., Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urol, 2015. 68(6): p. 1045-53.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Moldovan, P.C., et al., What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol, 2017. 72(2): p. 250-266.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Barrett, T. and M.A. Haider, The Emerging Role of MRI in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance and Ongoing Challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2017. 208(1): p. 131-139.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Eisenhauer, E.A., et al., New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer, 2009. 45(2): p. 228-47.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Futterer, J.J., et al., High-risk prostate cancer: value of multi-modality 3T MRI-guided biopsies after previous negative biopsies. Abdom Imaging, 2012. 37(5): p. 892-6.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Nagarajan, R., et al., Correlation of Gleason scores with diffusion-weighted imaging findings of prostate cancer. Adv Urol, 2012. 2012: p. 374805.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Girometti, R., et al., Interreader agreement of PI-RADS v. 2 in assessing prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI: A study using whole-mount histology as the standard of reference. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019. 49(2): p. 546-555.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Greer, M.D., 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: p. 1-8.
79.
Tay, K.J., et al., Defining the Incremental Utility of Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging at Standard and Specialized Read in Predicting Extracapsular Extension of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol, 2016. 70(2): p. 211-3.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Prostate MRI with PI-RADS v2.1: initial detection and active surveillance
Authors
Grace C. Lo
Daniel J. A. Margolis
Publication date
01-07-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 7/2020
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02346-z

Other articles of this Issue 7/2020

Abdominal Radiology 7/2020 Go to the issue

Special Section: Male pelvis

Imaging of the adult male urethra, penile prostheses and artificial urinary sphincters

Special Section: Distinguished Papers from JSAR

Mass-forming hepatic cryptococcosis: a mimicker of metastatic tumors

Review

MRI findings of nonobstructive azoospermia: lesions in and out of pelvic cavity

Special Section: Male Pelvis

Pelvic lymph nodes and pathways of disease spread in male pelvic malignancies

Special Section: Distinguished Papers from JSAR

MRI features of the nested variant of urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder: report of four cases

Special Section: Distinguished Papers from JSAR

A case of focal confluent hepatic fibrosis in the patient with hepatitis C virus-related liver cirrhosis: a mimic of cholangiolocellular carcinoma
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits