Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use

European Urology - Tập 69 Số 1 - Trang 41-49 - 2016
Jelle O. Barentsz1, Jeffrey C. Weinreb2, Sadhna Verma3, Harriet C. Thoeny4, Clare M. Tempany5, Faina Shtern6, Anwar R. Padhani7, Daniel Margolis8, Katarzyna J. Macura9, Masoom A. Haider10, F. Cornud11, Peter L. Choyke12
1Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
2Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
3University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
4Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
5University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
6AdMeTech Foundation, Boston, MA, USA
7Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, Middlesex, UK
8University of California, Los Angeles, CA USA
9Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA
10University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
11René Descartes University, Paris, France
12National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

Tóm tắt

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Fütterer, 2015, Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging?. A systematic review of the literature, Eur Urol, 68, 1045, 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013

Schoots, 2015, Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Eur Urol, 68, 438, 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037

Pokorny, 2014, Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies, Eur Urol, 66, 22, 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002

Panebianco, 2015, Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study, Urol Oncol, 33, 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.09.013

Delongchamps, 2013, Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies, J Urol, 189, 493, 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.195

Siddiqui, 2015, Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer, JAMA, 313, 390, 10.1001/jama.2014.17942

Heidenreich, 2011, Consensus criteria for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer: not ready for routine use, Eur Urol, 59, 495, 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.013

Dickinson, 2011, Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting, Eur Urol, 59, 477, 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.009

Barentsz, 2012, ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012, Eur Radiol, 22, 746, 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y

Hamoen, 2015, 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, 67, 1112, 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.033

Vaché, 2014, Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy, Radiology, 272, 446, 10.1148/radiol.14131584

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

Wolters, 2011, A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial, J Urol, 185, 121, 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.082

Radtke, 2015, Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance, J Urol, 193, 87, 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.098

Renard-Penna, 2015, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy, Radiology, 275, 458, 10.1148/radiol.14140184

Portalez, 2012, Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients, Eur Urol, 62, 986, 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.044

Delongchamps, 2015, Detection of significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance targeted biopsies--should transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided biopsies alone be a standard of care?, J Urol, 193, 1198, 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.002

Muller, 2015, Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging, Radiology, 142818

Malyarenko DI, Newitt D, J Wilmes L, et al. Demonstration of nonlinearity bias in the measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in multicenter trials. Magn Reson Med. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25754

Padhani, 2009, Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations, Neoplasia, 11, 102, 10.1593/neo.81328

Abd-Alazeez, 2014, The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level--can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?, Urol Oncol, 32, 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.06.007

Abd-Alazeez, 2014, Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard, Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 17, 40, 10.1038/pcan.2013.43

Arumainayagam, 2013, Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard, Radiology, 268, 761, 10.1148/radiol.13120641