Прошлое, настоящее и будущее магнитно-резонансной томографии рака предстательной железы

Спустя почти 40 лет с момента выполнения первой магнитно-резонансной томографии (МРТ) предстательной железы появились значительные технические улучшения: динамическое контрастное усиление, диффузионно-взвешенное изображение и спектроскопия. Также с появлением высокопольных магнитов и фазированных катушек резко улучшилось качество изображений. Эти улучшения привели к повышению точности выявления клинически значимого рака предстательной железы (РПЖ) и ранних рецидивов, облегчая составление плана лечения пациента. В исследованиях PROMIS (the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) 2017 г. и PRECISION (Prostate Evaluation for Clinically Important Disease: Sampling Using Image Guidance or Not) 2018 г. продемонстрировано, что МРТ играет важную роль в выявлении клинически значимого РПЖ и уменьшении гипердиагностики клинически незначимого РПЖ. В большом количестве опубликованных научных исследований оценки эффективности МРТ в диагностике РПЖ (определения локализации, стадирования злокачественного процесса) сообщается о различных результатах. Это обусловлено гетерогенностью протоколов исследований и различными аспектами выполнения МРТ. Цель публикации — оценить эффективность МРТ в диагностике РПЖ от начала ее применения до сегодняшнего дня и осветить перспективы будущего.

1. Takahashi H., Ouchi T. The ultrasonic diagnosis in the field of urology. Proc Jpn Soc Ultrason Med 1963;3:7.

2. Watanabe H., Kaiho H., Tanaka M., Terasawa Y. Diagnostic application of ultrasonotomography to the prostate. Invest Urol 1971;8(5):548-59.

3. Price J.M., Davidson A.J. Computed tomography in the evaluation of the suspected carcinomatous prostate. Urol Radiol 1979;1(1):39-42. DOI: 10.1007/BF02926598.

4. Damadian R. Tumor detection by nuclear magnetic resonance. Science 1971;171(3976):1151-3. DOI: 10.1126/science.171.3976.1151.

5. Steyn J.H., Smith F.W. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Br J Urol 1982;54(6):726-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1982.tb13634.x.

6. Hricak H., Williams R.D., Spring D.B. et al. Anatomy and pathology of the male pelvis by magnetic resonance imaging. AJR 1983;141(6):1101-10. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.141.6.1101.

7. Bryan P.J., Butler H.E., LiPuma J.P. et al. NMR scanning of the pelvis: initial experience with a 0.3 T system. AJR 1983;141(6):1111-8. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.141.6.1111.

8. Buonocore E., Hesemann C., Pavlicek W., Montie J.E. Clinical and in vitro magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic carcinoma. AJR 1984;143(6):1267-72. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.143.6.1267.

9. Poon P.Y., McCallum R.W., Henkelman M.M. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Radiology 1985;154(1):143-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.154.1.2578070.

10. Hricak H., Dooms G.C., McNeal J.E. et al. MR imaging of the prostate gland: normal anatomy. AJR 1987;148(1):51-8. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.148.1.51.

11. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., Allen C. et al. Clinical applications of multiparametric MRI within the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Urol Oncol 2013;31(3):281-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.02.004.

12. Cornud F., Delongchamps N.B., Mozer P. et al. Value of multiparametric MRI in the work-up of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2012;13(1):82-92. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-011-0231-z.

13. Mirowitz S.A., Brown J.J., Heiken J.P. Evaluation of the prostate and prostatic carcinoma with gadolinium-enhanced endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 1993;186(1):153-7. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.186.1.8416557.

14. Brown G., Macvicar D.A., Ayton V., Husband J.E. The role of intravenous contrast enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1995;50(9):601-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)83288-x.

15. Franiel T., Hamm B., Hricak H. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2011;21(3):616-26. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-2037-7.

16. Bonekamp D., Macura K.J. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the prostate. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2008;19(6):273-84. DOI: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e3181aacdc2.

17. Kayhan A., Fan X., Oto A. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2009;20(2):105-12. DOI: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e3181c0e2fa.

18. Sillerud L.O., Halliday K.R., Griffey R.H. et al. In vivo 13C NMR spectroscopy of the human prostate. Magn Reson Med 1988;8(2):224-30. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.1910080213.

19. Kurhanewicz J., Vigneron D.B., Nelson S.J. et al. Citrate as an in vivo marker to discriminate prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia and normal prostate peripheral zone: detection via localized proton spectroscopy. Urology 1995;45(3):459-66. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80016-8.

20. Weinreb J.C., Blume J.D., Coakley F.V. et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy: results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology 2009;251(1):122-33. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2511080409.

21. Mowatt G., Scotland G., Boachie C. et al. The diagnostic accuracy and costeffectiveness 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 2013;17(20):vii-xix, 1-281. DOI: 10.3310/hta17200.

22. Villeirs G.M., De Meerleer G.O., De Visschere P.J. et al. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in the assessment of high grade prostate carcinoma in patients with elevated PSA: a single-institution experience of 356 patients. Eur J Radiol 2011;77(2):340—5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.08.007.

23. Umbehr M., Bachmann L.M., Held U. et al. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur Urol 2009;55(3):575-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.10.019.

24. Chatterjee A., Watson G., Myint E. et al. Changes in epithelium, stroma, and lumen space correlate more strongly with Gleason pattern and are stronger predictors of prostate ADC changes than cellularity metrics. Radiology 2015;277(3):751-62. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142414.

25. Issa B. In vivo measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and malignant prostatic tissues using echo-planar imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002;16(2):196—200. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.10139.

26. Tan C.H., Wang J., Kundra V. Diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2011;21(3):593-603. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1960-y.

27. Jie C., Rongbo L., Ping T. The value of diffusionweighted imaging in the detection of prostate cancer: a metaanalysis. Eur Radiol 2014;24(8):1929-41. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3201-2.

28. Jacobs M.A., Ouwerkerk R., Petrowski K., Macura K.J. Diffusion-weighted imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and spectroscopy in prostate cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2008;19(6):261-72. DOI: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e3181aa6b50.

29. Gibbs P., Pickles M.D., Turnbull L.W. Diffusion imaging of the prostate at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41(2):185-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000192418.30684.14.

30. Bezzi M., Kressel H.Y., Allen K.S. et al. Prostatic carcinoma: staging with MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 1988;169(2):339-46. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.169.2.3174982.

31. Schnall M.D., Lenkinski R.E., Pollack H.M. et al. Prostate: MR imaging with an endorectal surface coil. Radiology 1989;172(2):570-4. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.172.2.2748842.

32. D'Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B. et al. Critical analysis of the ability of the endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging scan to predict pathologic stage, margin status, and postoperative prostate-specific antigen failure in patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996;14(6):1770-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.6.1770.

33. Heijmink S.W.T.P.J., Futterer J.J., 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(1):184-95. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2441060425.

34. Engelbrecht M.R., Jager G.J., Laheij R.J. et al. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a metaanalysis. Eur Radiol 2002;12(9):2294-302. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1389-z.

35. Gawlitza J., Reiss-Zimmermann M., Thormer G. et al. Impact of the use of an endorectal coil for 3 T prostate MRI on image quality and cancer detection rate. Sci Rep 2017;7:40640. DOI: 10.1038/srep40640.

36. Costa D.N., Yuan Q., Xi Y. et al. Comparison of prostate cancer detection at 3-T MRI with and without an endorectal coil: a prospective, pairedpatient study. Urol Oncol 2016;34(6):255.e7-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.02.009.

37. Brizmohun Appayya M., Adshead J., Ahmed H.U. et al. National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection: recommendations from a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int 2018;122(1):13-25. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14361.

38. Bloch B.N., Rofsky N.M., Baroni R.H. et al. 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal coils: initial experience(1). Acad Radiol 2004;11(8):863-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2004.04.017.

39. 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.

40. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., 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(4):477-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.009.

41. Kim C.K., Park B.K. Update of prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008;32(2):163-72. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3180683b99.

42. Kim C.K., Park B.K., Kim B. Diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 T for the evaluation of prostate cancer. AJR 2010;194(6):1461-9. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3654.

43. 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 2005;185(5):1214-20. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.04.1584.

44. Cornfeld D.M., Weinreb J.C. MR imaging of the prostate: 1.5T versus 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007;15(3):433-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2007.06.004.

45. Futterer J.J., Barentsz J.O., Heijmink S.W. Value of 3-T magnetic resonance imaging in local staging of prostate cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2008;19(6):285-9. DOI: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e3181aa688f.

46. Wollin D.A., Makarov D.V. Guideline of guidelines: imaging of localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015;116(4):526-30. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13104.

47. Heidenreich A., Bellmunt J., Bolla M. et al. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1. Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011;59(1):61-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.039.

48. Heidenreich A., Bastian P.J., Bellmunt J. et al.; European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014;65(1):124-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046.

49. Mottet N., van den Bergh R.C.N., Briers E. et al. EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology website. uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/ EAUESUR-ESTRO-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-large-text-V2.pdf. Published 2018. Accessed March 8, 2019.

50. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. Clinical guideline [CG175]. NICE website. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG175. Published 2014. Accessed March 8, 2019.

51. Eberhardt S.C., Carter S., Casalino D.D. et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria prostate cancer: pretreatment detection, staging, and surveillance. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10(2):83-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.10.021.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. Renard-Penna R., Mozer P., Cornud F. et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 2015;275(2):458-68. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140184.

56. Brizmohun Appayya M., Sidhu H.S., Dikaios N. et al. Characterizing indeterminate (Likert score 3/5) peripheral zone prostate lesions with PSA density, PI-RADS scoring and qualitative descriptors on multiparametric MRI. Br J Radiol 2018;91(1083):20170645. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170645.

57. Rosenkrantz A.B., Kim S., Lim R.P. et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 2013;269(2):482-92. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122233.

58. Kirkham A.P.S., Haslam P., Keanie J.Y. et al. Prostate MRI: who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus meeting. Clin Radiol 2013;68(10):1016-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.03.030.

59. Moore C.M., Kasivisvanathan V., Eggener S. et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013;64(4):544-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030.

60. Nour S.G. MR imaging-guided focal treatment of prostate cancer: an update. Radiol Clin North Am 2018;56(2):301-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2017.10.011.

61. Lindner U., Lawrentschuk N., Trachtenberg J. Image guidance for focal therapy of prostate cancer. World J Urol 2010;28(6):727-34. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-010-0604-9.

62. Wysock J.S., Lepor H. Multi-parametric MRI imaging of the prostateimplications for focal therapy. Transl Androl Urol 2017;6(3):453-63. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.04.29.

63. Oto A., Sethi I., Karczmar G. et al. MR imagingguided focal laser ablation for prostate cancer: phase I trial. Radiology 2013;267(3):932-40. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13121652.

64. Van den Bos W., Muller B.G., Ahmed H. et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol 2014;65(6):1078-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.001.

65. Donaldson I.A., Alonzi R., Barratt D. et al. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes - a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2015;67(4):771-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.018.

66. De Visschere P.J.L., Vargas H.A., Ost P. et al. Imaging treated prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 2013;38(6):1431-46. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-013-9998-3.

67. Vargas H.A., Wassberg C., Akin O., Hricak H. MR imaging of treated prostate cancer. Radiology 2012;262(1):26-42. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11101996.

68. Moore C.M., Giganti F., Albertsen P. et al. Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations -a report of a European school of oncology task force. Eur Urol 2017;71(4):648-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011.

69. Padhani A.R., Lecouvet F.E., Tunariu N. et al. METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan involvement in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017;71(1):81-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.033.

70. Fulgham P.F., Rukstalis D.B., Turkbey I.B. 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(4):832-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.101.

71. National Health Service England. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Available at: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/implementing-timed-prostate-cancer-diagnosticpathway.pdf. Published April 18, 2018. Accessed October 4, 2018.

72. Moore C. Can negative prostate magnetic resonance imaging give us the reassurance we need to avoid standard biopsy? An evidence-based practical approach. Eur Urol 2018;74(1):55-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.042.

73. Ахвердиева Г.И. Топическая МРТ-диагностика локализованного рака предстательной железы и его рецидивов после радикальной простатэктомии. Дис. ... канд. мед. наук. М., 2014.

74. Капустин В.В., Широкорад В.И., Громов А.И., Кошурников Д.С. Первый опыт применения технологии совмещения ультразвуковоых и магнитнорезонансных изображений (fusion) в диагностике рака предстательной железы. Онкоурология 2010;6(3):32-6. DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2010-6-3-32-36.

75. Ahmed H.U., El-Shater Bosaily A., Brown L.C. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389(10071):815-22. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.

76. Kasivisvanathan V., Rannikko A.S., Borghi M. et al. MRItargeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378(19):1767-77. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.

77. Panebianco V., Barchetti G., Simone G. et al. Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what's next? Eur Urol 2018;74(1):48-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007.

78. Moore C.M., Petrides N., Emberton M. Can MRI replace serial biopsies in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer? Curr Opin Urol 2014;24(3):280-7. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000040.

79. Wysock J.S., Mendhiratta N., Zattoni F. et al. Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric prostate MRI on 12 core biopsy results. BJU Int 2016;118(4):515-20. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13427.

80. 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 2017;119(2):225-33. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13465.

81. Alabousi M., Salameh J.P., Gusenbauer K. et al. Biparametric vs multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of prostate cancer in treatment-naive patients: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and metaanalysis. BJU Int 2019;124(2):209-20. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14759.

82. Boesen L., Nrgaard N., Legager 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 Open 2018;1(2):e180219. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0219.

83. Manenti G., Nezzo M., Chegai F. et al. DWI of prostate cancer: optimal b-value in clinical practice. Prostate Cancer 2014;2014:868269. DOI: 10.1155/2014/868269.

84. Tamada T., Kanomata N., Sone T. et al. High b value (2,000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: comparison with 1,000 s/mm2 for tumor conspicuity and discrimination of aggressiveness. PLoS One 2014;9(5):e96619. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096619.

85. Kim C.K., Park B.K., Kim B. High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(1):W33-7. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3004.

86. 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):883-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08130.x.

87. Gibbs P., Liney G.P., Pickles M.D. et al. Correlation of ADC and T2 measurements with cell density in prostate cancer at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2009;44(9):572-6. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181b4c10e.

88. Simpkin C.J., Morgan V.A., Giles S.L. et al. Relationship between T2 relaxation and apparent diffusion coefficient in malignant and non-malignant prostate regions and the effect of peripheral zone fractional volume. Br J Radiol 2013;86(1024):20120469. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20120469.

89. Kim J.H., Kim J.K., Park B.W. et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient: prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28(5):1173-9. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21513.

90. Гончарук Д.А., Велиев Е.И., Лоран О.Б. и др. Применение неинвазивных маркеров мультипараметрической магнитно-резонансной томографии в определении клинически значимого рака предстательной железы. Проблемы социальной гигиены, здравоохранения и истории медицины 2019;27(спецвы-пуск):559-64.

91. Schelb P., Kohl S., Radtke J.P. et al. Classification of cancer at prostate MRI: deep learning versus clinical PI-RADS assessment. Radiology 2019;293(3):607-617. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190938.

92. Greer M.D., Lay N., Shih J.H. et al. Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: an international multi-reader study. Eur Radiol 2018;28(10):4407-17. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5374-6.

93. Choyke P.L. Quantitative MRI or machine learning for prostate MRI: which should you use? Radiology 2018;289(1):138-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018181304.

94. Valerio M., Zini C., Fierro D. et al. 3T multiparametric MRI of the prostate: does intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion imaging have a role in the detection and stratification of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone? Eur J Radiol 2016;85(4):790-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.006.

95. Nguyen T.B., Ushinsky A., Yang A. et al. Utility of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient measurements and normalized apparent diffusion coefficient ratios in the diagnosis of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2018;91(1088):20180091. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180091.

96. Hoang Dinh A., Melodelima C., Souchon R. et al. Quantitative analysis of prostate multiparametric MR images for detection of aggressive prostate cancer in the peripheral zone: a multiple imager study. Radiology 2016;280(1):117-27. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016151406.

97. Metzger G.J., Kalavagunta C., Spilseth B. et al. Detection of prostate cancer: quantitative multiparametric MR imaging models developed using registered correlative histopathology. Radiology 2016;279(3):805-16. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015151089.