Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2: how we review and report

Prostate imaging and interpretation is based on prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS™ v2) providing clinical guidelines for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. PI-RADS™ v2 aims to promote global standardisation, to diminish variation in the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of prostate mpMRI examinations and to improve detection, localisation, and risk stratification in patients with suspected cancer in treatment naïve prostate glands. It does not address detection of recurrence, progression during active surveillance and evaluation of other parts of the body.PI-RADS™ v2 improves and standardises communication between radiologists and urologists to detect or exclude the presence of significant prostate cancer with a high likelihood. Findings on mpMRI are assessed on a 5-point category scale based on the probability that a combination of findings on T2-weighted (T2w) sequences, diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) correlates with the presence of a clinically significant prostate cancer at a particular location. PI-RADS assessment categories range from 1 to 5 with 5 being most likely to represent clinically significant prostate cancer. The dominant sequence to detect prostate cancer in the peripheral zone is DWI, whereas for tumour detection in the transition zone T2w is the most important sequence. DCE-MRI has been attributed a minor role and only qualitative assessment with presence or absence of focal enhancement is suggested. Up to four suspicious lesions of category 3, 4 and 5 are assigned on a sector map and the index lesion should be identified.

[1]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[2]  Theodorus H van der Kwast,et al.  The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. , 2011, European urology.

[3]  Andrew B Rosenkrantz,et al.  Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  M. Conti New prospects for PET in prostate cancer imaging: a physicist's viewpoint , 2014, EJNMMI Physics.

[5]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. , 2016, European urology.

[6]  J. Gohagan,et al.  Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  Thomas Wiegel,et al.  Guidelines on Prostate Cancer , 2013 .

[8]  L. Bains,et al.  Metastases in normal-sized pelvic lymph nodes: detection with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. , 2014, Radiology.

[9]  P. P. Iu,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines. , 2013, European radiology.

[10]  T. Tammela,et al.  Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up , 2014, The Lancet.

[11]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Reply to Erik Rud and Eduard Baco's Letter to the Editor re: Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40. , 2016, European urology.

[12]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Pitfalls in Interpreting mp-MRI of the Prostate: A Pictorial Review with Pathologic Correlation , 2015, Insights into Imaging.

[13]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[14]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[15]  Laurent Lemaitre,et al.  Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance , 2009, Current opinion in urology.

[16]  Shyam Natarajan,et al.  MRI–ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy , 2013, Current opinion in urology.

[17]  J. Crowley,et al.  Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.