A system of a unified approach to interpreting prostate magnetic resonance imaging according to the PI-RADSv2 guidelines

The experience with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) used to diagnose prostate cancer (PC) is more than 35 years. Cardinal changes have occurred over that time. The accumulation of experience and the development of technologies have given rise to multiparameter MRI (mpMRI) involving the assessment of both functional and anatomic images. The International MRI Working Group on PC Diagnosis was set up in 2007. The Group has elaborated the basic principles of the standardization and compatibility of MRI studies, which are embodied in the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines as a PI-RADS. The development of this system could create conditions for reducing variations in MRI procedures, interpretation, and mpMRI report forms for PC. The system has realized a scale of rating categories that summarize levels of suspicion or risk and that may be used to select patients for different tactics, such as biopsy or active monitoring. Furthermore, such an optimized approach allows reproducible MRI studies for monitoring during an active follow-up and for the early detection of recurrences. Therefore, PI-RADS enables one to systematize MRI reports and to unify the language of communication between radiologists, urologists, and oncologists.

Owing to the rapid widespread and introduction of the PI-RADS system, it has become possible to analyze its efficiency and to reveal some critical moments. The pooling of the resources of the American College of Radiology (ACR), (ESUR), and the AdMetech Foundation has permitted an Ad Hoc Coordinating Committee, the activity of which is to obtain scientific evidence and to form expert opinions to improve the system, as a result of which an updated PI-RADSv2 was published in 2015. This paper deals with the basic principles of a prostate MRI analysis in accordance with the PI-RADSv2 grades.

1. Thornbury J.R., Ornstein D.K., Choyke P.L. et al. Prostate Cancer: What is the future for imaging? Am J Roentgenology 2001;176:17–22.

2. Engelhard K., Hollenback H.P., Deimiing M. et al. Combination of signal intensity measurements of lesions in the peripheral zone of prostate with MRI and serum PSA level for differentiating benign disease from prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2000;10(12);1947–53.

3. 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 2013:269:482–92.

4. 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. European Urology 2013;64:544–52.

5. Roethke M.C., Kuru T.H., Schultze S. et al. Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. European Radiol 2014;24(2): 344–52.

6. de Rooij M., Hamoen E.H.J., Futterer J.J. et al. Accuracy of muliparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenology 2014;202:343–51.

7. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., Allen C. et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of mulitparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization and chanarcterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson imaging 2013;37:48–58.

8. Cornud F., Khoury G., Bouazza N. et al. Tumor target volume for focal therapy of prostate cancer-does multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging allow for a reliable estimation? J Urol 2014;191(5):1272–9.

9. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R. et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746–57.

10. Rothke M., Blondin D., Schlemmer H.P., Franiel T. PI-RADS- Klassifikation: Strukturiertes Befundungsschema für die MRT der Prostata. Fortschr Rontgenstr 2013;185(3):253–61.

11. PI-RADS™ Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System. Version 2. American College of Radiology, 2015. URL: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADS%20V2.pdf.

12. Barrett T., Turkbey B., Choyke P.L. PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clinical Radiology 2015;70(11):1165–76.

13. Kuru T.H., Roethke M.C., Rieker P. et al. Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int 2013;112(8):1080–7.

14. Thoeny H.C., Froeliich J.M., Triantafyllou M. et al. Metastases in norma-sized pelvic lymph nodes: detection with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 2014;273:125–35.

15. McNeal J.E. The Zonal anatomy of the prostate. The Prostate 1981;2:35–49.

16. Puech P., Rouviere O., Renard-Penna R. et al. Prostate cacner diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal U-MR fusion guidance versus systemeic biopsy-prospective mulitcenter study. Radiology 2013: 268;461–9.

17. Vargas H.A., Hötker A.M., Goldman D.A. et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 2015, Sep. 22.

18. Niaf E., Lartizien C., Bratan F. et al. Prostate focal peripheral zone lesions; characterization at multiparametric MR imaging-influence of computer-aided diagnosis system. Radiology 2014;271:761–9.

19. Somford D.M., Hamoen E.H., Futterer J.J. et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190(5):1728–34.

20. Ren J., Yang Y., Zhang J. et al. T(2)-weighted combined with diffusion-weighted images for evaluating prostatic transition zone tumors at 3 Tesla. Future Oncol 2013;9(4):585–93.

21. Akin O., Sala E., Moskowitz C.S. et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2006;239(3):784–92.

22. 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).

23. Grant K.B., Agarwal H.K., Shih J.H. et al. Comparison of calculated and acquired high b value diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 2015;40(3):578–86.

24. Bittencourt L.K., Attenberger U.I., Lima D. et al. Feasibility study of computed vs measured high b-value (1400 s/mm(2)) diffusion-weighted MR images of the prostate. World J Radiol 2014;6(6):374–80.

25. Maas M.C., Futterer J.J., Scheenen T.W. Quantitative evaluation of computed high B value diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2013;48(11):779–86.

26. Medved M., Soylu-Boy F.N., Karademir I. et al. High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate. AJR 2014:203:85–90.

27. Iwazawa J., Mitani T., Sassa S., Ohue S. Prostate cancer detection with MRI: is dynamic contrast enhanced imaging necessary in addition to diffusion-weighted imaging? Diagn Interv Radiol 2011;17(3):243–8.

28. 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.

29. Hamoen E.H., de Rooij M., Witjes J.A. et al. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: A diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67(6): 1112–21.