PI-RADS v2.1: moving towards clarity (comments on the updated version)
https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2020-16-2-15-28
Abstract
Previously presented Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) system was developed on the basis of consensus that was achieved by the results of published studies containing expert and analytical conclusions. Numerous studies on PI-RADS v2, not only confirmed the importance of a unified system in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, but also revealed a number of limitations. In order to eliminate flaws of PI-RADS v2, a number of potential solutions were proposed. The PI-RADS Steering Committee recommended changes in PI-RADS v2, with maintaining the structure of sequence scoring and using these scores to obtain the final category. The updated version was published as PI-RADS v2.1 at the beginning of 2019. It is expected that the use of PI-RADS v2.1 will optimize and simplify the evaluation magnetic resonance imaging of prostate and reduce the number of interpretation errors. At the same time, it is necessary to continue further studies on the assessment of the clinical significance of this system when choosing a treatment strategy and monitoring patients with a high potentialfor the development
About the Authors
N. A. Rubtsova
P.A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute — branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
3 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284
Competing Interests: not
A. V. Mishchenko
City Clinical Oncology Hospital No. 1, Moscow Healthcare Department; Scientific Clinical and Educational Center “Radiation Diagnostics and Nuclear Medicine”, Medical Faculty, Saint Petersburg State University; N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Competing Interests: not
Medical Faculty SPSU
7—9 Universitetskaya Naberezhnaya, Saint Petersburg 199034; 17/1 Baumanskaya St., Moscow 105005; 68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochniji, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests: not
V. V. Danilov
N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochniji, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests: not
G. A. Gulin
Sverdlovsk Regional Oncology Center, Private Medical Center UGMK-Health
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
113 Sheynkmana St., Ekaterinburg 620144
Competing Interests: not
B. Ya. Alekseev
P.A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute — branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
3 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284
Competing Interests: not
А. D. Kaprin
P.A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute — branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
3 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284
Competing Interests: not
References
1. Renard-Penna R., Rouviere O., Puech P. et al. Current practice and access to prostate MR imaging in France. Diagn Interv Imaging 2016;97(11):1125—9. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2016.06.010.
2. Oberlin D.T., Casalino D.D., Miller F.H., Meeks J.J. Dramatic increase in the utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection and management of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol 2017;42(4):1255—8. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0975-5.
3. Gupta R.T., Spilseth B., Froemming A.T. How and why a generation of radiologists must be trained to accurately interpret prostate mpMRI. Abdom Radiol 2016;41(5):803—4. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0745-4.
4. Weinreb J.C., Barentsz J.O., Choyke P.L. et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging — reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69(1):16—40. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.
5. Mishchenko A.V., Rubtsova N.A., Alekseev B.Ya. et al. A system of a unified approach to interpreting prostate magnetic resonance imaging according to the PI-RADS v2 guidelines. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2016;12(1):81—9. (In Russ.).
6. Spilseth B.D., Patel G.S., Taneja N.U. et al. A comparison of radiologists’ and urologists’ opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting: results from a survey of specialty societies. Am J Roentgenol 2018;210(1):101 —7. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18241.
7. Purysko A.S., Bittencourt L.K., Bullen J.A. et al. Accuracy and interobserver agreement for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2, for the characterization of lesions identified on multiparametric MRI of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;209(2): 339-49. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.17289.
8. Seo J.W., Shin S.J., Taik Oh.Y. et al. PI-RADS version 2: detection of clinically significant cancer in patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;209(1):W1-9. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.16981.
9. Mehralivand S., Bednarova S., Shih J.H. et al. Prospective evaluation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 using the International Society of Urological Pathology Prostate Cancer Grade Group system. J Urol 2017;198(3):583-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.131.
10. Woo S., Suh C.H., Kim S.Y et al. Diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic metaanalysis. Eur Urol 2017;72(2):177—88. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.042.
11. Padhani A.R., Weinreb J., Rosenkrantz A.B. et al. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. Eur Urol 2019;75(3):385—96. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.035.
12. Kossov Ph.A., Chernyaev V.A., Akhverdieva G.I. et al. Role and significance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnostics. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2017;13(1):122—33. (In Russ.).
13. Greer M.D., Shih J.H., 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(3):859—69. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017161316.
14. Rosenkrantz A.B., Babb J.S., Taneja S.S., Ream J.M. Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 2017;283(1):119—29. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016161124.
15. Greer M.D., Brown A.M., Shih J.H. et al. Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45(2):579—85. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25372.
16. Rosenkrantz A.B., Ginocchio L.A., Cornfeld D. et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016;280(3):793—804. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016152542.
17. Rosenkrantz A.B., Oto A., Turkbey B., Westphalen A.C. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), version 2: a critical look. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206(6):1179—83. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.15765.
18. Turkbey B., Rosenkrantz A.B., Haider M.A. 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;76(3):340—51. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
19. Rosenkrantz A.B., Padhani A.R., Chenevert T.L. et al. Body diffusion kurtosis imaging: basic principles, applications, and considerations for clinical practice. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42(5):1190—202. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24985.
20. Ream J.M., Doshi A.M., 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(5):1464—75. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25451.
21. Othman A.E., Falkner F., Weiss J. et al. Effect of temporal resolution on diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2016;51(5):290—6. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000234.
22. Gromov A.I., Kapustin V.V Practical approaches to using the PI-RADS v2.1 system when performing magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland. Medicinskaya vizualizaciya = Medical Imaging 2019;(3):107—25. (In Russ.).
23. Vargas H.A., 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(3):894—902. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110663.
24. Ward E., Baad M., Peng Y. et al. Multiparametric MR imaging of the anterior fibromuscular stroma and its differentiation from prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42(3):926—34. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0951-0.
25. Bouye S., Potiron E., Puech P. et al. Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histo-pathology. Prostate 2009;69(1):105—13. DOI: 10.1002/pros.20859.
26. Turkbey 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(11):1642—7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11469.x.
27. Chesnais A.L., Niaf E., Bratan F. et al. Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. Clin Radiol 2013;68(6):e323—30. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.01.018.
28. Sabouri S., Chang S.D., Goldenberg S.L. et al. Comparing diagnostic accuracy of luminal water imaging with diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer: a quantitative MRI study. NMR Biomed 2019;32(2): e4048. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4048.
29. Boesen 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 2018;1(2):e180219. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0219.
30. Jambor I., Bostrom 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(4):1089—95. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25641.
31. Cuocolo R., Stanzione A., Rusconi G. et al. PSA-density does not improve bi-parametric prostate MR detection of prostate cancer in a biopsy naive patient population. Eur J Radiol 2018;104:64-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.05.004.
32. Weiss J., Martirosian P., Notohamiprodjo M. et al. Implementation of a 5-minute magnetic resonance imaging screening protocol for prostate cancer in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen before biopsy. Invest Radiol 2018;53(3):186—90. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000427.
33. Barth B.K., De Visschere PJ.L., Cornelius A. et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: short dual-pulse sequence versus standard multiparametric MR imaging — a multireader study. Radiology 2017;284(3):725—36. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162020.
34. Krishna 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(6):W365—73. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.17964.
35. Kuhl C.K., Bruhn R., Kramer N. et al. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology 2017;285(2): 493—505. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170129.
36. 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 examinations? World J Urol. In press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2428-y.
37. Lee S.J., Oh Y.T., Jung D.C. et al. Combined analysis of biparametric MRI and prostate-specific antigen density: role in the prebiopsy diagnosis of Gleason score 7 or greater prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;211(3):W166—72. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19253.
38. Mehralivand S., Shih J.H., Rais-Bahrami S. et al. A magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol 2018;4(5):678—85. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5667.
39. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R. et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):746—57. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.
Review
For citations:
Rubtsova N.A., Mishchenko A.V., Danilov V.V., Gulin G.A., Alekseev B.Ya., Kaprin А.D. PI-RADS v2.1: moving towards clarity (comments on the updated version). Cancer Urology. 2020;16(2):15-28. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2020-16-2-15-28
Views:
8906
Email this article 