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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Abdominal Radiology
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 12/2020

01-12-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Special Section: Prostate cancer update

Round table: arguments in supporting abbreviated or biparametric MRI of the prostate protocol

Authors: Michele Scialpi, Eugenio Martorana, Pietro Scialpi, Alfredo D’Andrea, Riccardo Torre, Aldo Di Blasi, Stefano Signore

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 12/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 update, in the attempt to improve clinical guidelines for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate, has clear limitations. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences is not defined, precise guidance on the clinical management (biopsy or clinical surveillance) for score 3 lesions [equivocal for clinical significant prostate cancer (sPCa)] is not offered and criteria for lesions interpretation remain difficult and subjective. We report criteria and arguments in supporting the use of abbreviated or biparametric prostate MRI protocol in clinical practice for detection and management of PCa.
Literature
1.
Mortezavi A, Marzendorfer O, Donati OF et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Fusion Guided Targeted Biopsy Evaluated by Transperineal Template Saturation Prostate Biopsy for the Detection and Characterization of Prostate Cancer. The Journal of urology 2018;200(2):309–318.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Ahmed 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 (London, England) 2017;389 (10071):815–822.CrossRef
3.
Turkbey 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. European urology 2019, 340-351.
4.
5.
Barrett T, Rajesh A, RosenkrantzAB, Choyke PL, Turkbey B. PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI. Clin Radiol. 2019 Nov;74(11):841-852.
6.
Kang Z, Min X, Weinreb J, Li Q. Feng Z, Wang L. Abbreviated Biparametric Versus Standard Multiparametric MRI for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Feb;212(2):357-365.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Niu XK, Chen XH, Chen ZF, Chen L, Li J, Peng T. Diagnostic Performance of Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 2018, 211 (2): 369-378.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Alabousi M, Salameh J-P, Gusenbauer K, et al. Biparametric vs multipara- metric prostate magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2019; 124: 209–220–23.
9.
Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH, Moon MH.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 211 (2018), pp. W226-W241.CrossRef
10.
Scialpi 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 Mar;37(3):1263-1271.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Scialpi M, Martorana E, Aisa MC et al. Abbreviated Biparametric Prostate MR Imaging: Is It Really an Alternative to Multiparametric MR Imaging? Radiology. 2018 Jan;286(1):360-361.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Scialpi M, Aisa MC, D’Andrea A, Martorana E.Simplified Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System for Biparametric Prostate MRI: A Proposal. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Aug;211(2):379-382 .CrossRefPubMed
14.
Haghighi M, Shah S, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging ver sus dynamic-contrast enhanced imaging for tumor localization—a meta-analysis. J Assist Tomogr 2013; 37:980–988.CrossRef
15.
Tan CH, Hobbs BP, Wei W, Kundra V. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the detection of pros- tate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR 2015; 204:[web] W439–W448.
16.
Tan CH, Wei W, Johnson V, Kundra V. Diffusion- weighted MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR 2012; 199:822–829).
17.
18.
Lovegrove CE, Matanhelia M, Randeva J, Eldred-Evans D, Tam H, Miah S, Winkler M, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. Prostate imaging features that indicates benign or malignant pathology on biopsy. Translational Andrology and Urology, 7, S420-S435.
19.
Lee H, Hwang SI, Lee HJ, Byun S-S, Lee SE, Hong SK, Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer: Peripheral zone versus transition zone Plos One. 2018: 13(6): e0199636.PubMed
20.
Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011. May;259(2):453–461.
21.
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(2):488–495.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Wang XZ, Wang B, Gao ZQ et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29(6):1360–1366.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103(7):883–888.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Campbell N, Gaing B, Deng FM, Taneja SS. Transition Zone Prostate Cancer: Revisiting the Role of Multiparametric MRI at 3T. AJR, Am Journal of Roengenol, March 2015, Vol. 204, 3, W266-W272.
26.
Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, Tretiakova M, Yang C, Antic T, Dahi F, et al. Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2010. December;257(3):715–723.
27.
Scialpi M, Scialpi P, Aisa MC, Martorana E, D’Andrea A. Simplified PI-RADS with Biparametric MRI: A Practical Approach to Improve Management of PI-RADS Version 2 Category 3 Lesions. Radiology. 2018 Dec;289(3):882-883.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Scialpi M, Scialpi P, Pusiol T, D’andrea A. Biparametric MRI and 41 sector map for MRI/Transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy to increase diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer. Turk J Urol. 2018 Nov;44(6):453-454.
29.
Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Kramer N, et al. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology 2017;285(2):493-50.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Scialpi M, Martorana E, Scialpi P, Mazzucca D, Di Renzo A, Di Blasi A, Torre R Mancioli F, D’Andrea A. Index lesion estimation by biparametric MRI in multifocal prostate cancer. EPOS C-12104. Eurpean Congress of Radiology, Wien 2020.
31.
Scialpi M, Scialpi P, Martorana E. Prostate Cancer Index Lesion Detection and Volume Estimation: Is Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Really Reliable? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Dec;213(6):W289.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Martorana E, Pirola GM, Scialpi M et al. Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: validation of its value alone and matched with prostate imaging reporting and data system score. BJU Int. 2017 Jul;120(1):92-103.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Scialpi M, Martorana E, D’Andrea A. Standardizing Biparametric MRI to Simplify and Improve Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2, in Prostate Cancer Management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Oct;207(4):W74-W75.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Obmann 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.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Dyche DJ, Ness J, West M, Allareddy V, Konety BR. Prevalence of prostate specific antigen testing for prostate cancer in elderly J Urol 2006; 175(6): 2078-2082.CrossRefPubMed
36.
De Visschere P, Lumen N, Ost P. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging has limited added value over T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging when using PI-RADSv2 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA, Clin Radiol. 2017 Jan;72(1):23-32.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Jones EC, Goldenberg SL. Assessment of the need for DCE MRI in the detection of dominant lesions in the whole gland: Correlation between histology and MRI of prostate cancer. NMR Biomed. 2018; 3117.
38.
Choi MH, Kim CK, Lee YJ, Jung SE. Prebiopsy Biparametric MRI for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection With PI-RADS Version 2: A Multicenter Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212: 839– 846.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Kuess P, Andrzejewski P, Nilsson D et al. Association between pathology and texture features of multi parametric MRI of the prostate. Phys Med Biol. 2017; 62: 7833–7854.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Junker D, Steinkohl F, Fritz V et al. Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric MRI of the prostate: are gadolinium-based contrast agents needed for routine examina- tions? World J Urol. 2018.
41.
Quon J, Kielar AZ, Jain R, Schieda N.Assessing the utilization of functional imaging in multi-parametric (mp) prostate MRI in routine clinical practice. Clin Radiol 70:373–378,
42.
Yu J, Fulcher AS, Winks SG, Turner MA Clayton RD, Brooks M, Li S.Diagnosis of typical and atypical transition zone prostate cancer and its mimics at multiparametric prostate MRI. Br J Radiol. May 2017; 90(1073): 20160693.
43.
Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C, Cruickshank M, Ford JA, Fraser C, Kurban L. The Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques in Aiding the Localisation of Prostate Abnormalities for Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation Health Technol Assess. May 2013 May;17(20):vii-xix, 1-281. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3310/​hta17200.
44.
Ramalho J, Ramalho M. Gadolinium Deposition and Chronic Toxicity. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017; 25: 765–778.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Fraum TJ, Ludwig DR, Bashir MR, Fowler KJ. Gadolinium-based contrast agents: A comprehensive risk assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2017; 46: 338–353.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Jung JW, Kang HR, Kim MH et al. Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based MR contrast media. Radiology. 2012;264:414–422.CrossRefPubMed
47.
McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;275:772–782.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Runge VM. Critical questions regarding gadolinium deposition in the brain and body after injections of the gadolinium-based contrast agents, safety, and clinical recommendations in consideration of the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance and Risk Assessment Committee recommendation for suspension of the marketing authorizations for 4 linear agents. Invest Radiol 2017; 52:317–323.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Soubra A et al.,Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications, Prostate Cancer Prostatic Disease, 2018 Nov;21(4):573-578.
50.
Zhang Y, Zeng N, Zhang F,Huang Y,Tian Y. How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3?, International Journal of Clinical Oncology 2019 Aug 31.
51.
Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM. Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection, Radiology. 2017 Apr;283(1):119-129.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Metadata
Title
Round table: arguments in supporting abbreviated or biparametric MRI of the prostate protocol
Authors
Michele Scialpi
Eugenio Martorana
Pietro Scialpi
Alfredo D’Andrea
Riccardo Torre
Aldo Di Blasi
Stefano Signore
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 12/2020
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02510-w

Other articles of this Issue 12/2020

Abdominal Radiology 12/2020 Go to the issue

Special Section : Prostate cancer update

Delivering Clinical impacts of the MRI diagnostic pathway in prostate cancer diagnosis

Special Section: Prostate cancer

Nonsuspicious prebiopsy multiparametric MRI: is prostate biopsy still necessary?

Special Section: Prostate cancer

Upcoming American College of Radiology prostate MRI designation launching: what to expect

Special Section: Prostate cancer

Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer

Review

Therapeutic response assessment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: society of abdominal radiology review paper on the role of morphological and functional imaging techniques

Pelvis

Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup
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