Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v 2.1: Overview and Critical Points

전립선영상 판독과 자료체계 2.1 버전: 개요와 비판적인 의견

  • Chan Kyo Kim (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 김찬교 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2022.12.19
  • Accepted : 2023.01.20
  • Published : 2023.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The technical parameters and imaging interpretation criteria of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) are updated in PI-RADS v2.1. These changes have been an expected improvement for prostate cancer evaluation, although some issues remain unsolved, and new issues have been raised. In this review, a brief overview of PI-RADS v2.1 is and several critical points are discussed as follows: the need for more detailed protocols of mpMRI, lack of validation of the revised transition zone interpretation criteria, the need for clarification for the revised diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria, anterior fibromuscular stroma and central zone assessment, assessment of background signal and tumor aggressiveness, changes in the structured report, the need for the parameters for imaging quality and performance control, and indications for expansion of the system to include other indications.

전립선영상 판독과 자료체계 버전 2.1에서는 다중 매개 자기공명영상(multiparametric MRI; 이하 mpMRI)을 사용하는 버전 2의 기술적인 변수와 영상 판독 기준이 개정되었다. 이러한 변화를 통해 전립선암 평가의 발전이 예상지만, 어떤 사항들은 아직까지 해결되지 않았고 새로운 문제점들이 부각되고 있다. 본 종설에서는 전립선영상 판독과 자료체계 2.1 버전의 간단한 개요와 새롭게 부상하는 다음과 같은 문제들에 대해 비판적인 관점에서 논의하고자 한다: mpMRI의 보다 자세한 프로토콜에 대한 필요, 개정된 이행부 판독기준에 대한 검증 부족, 개정된 확산강조영상 및 조영 증강 영상 판독기준, anterior fibromuscular stroma, 중심부 평가, 주변부 신호 및 종양 공격성, 구조화된 판독문 변화에 대한 명료화의 필요, 영상 품질과 수행능력 제어에 대한 필요 및 기타 적응증을 포함하도록 시스템 확장을 위한 적응증.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by Samsung Biomedical Research Institute Grant (#OTX0001931).

References

  1. Gupta RT, Mehta KA, Turkbey B, Verma S. PI-RADS: past, present, and future. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020; 52:33-53 
  2. Park JJ, Kim CK. Paradigm shift in prostate cancer diagnosis: pre-biopsy prostate magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy. Korean J Radiol 2022;23:625-637 
  3. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815-822 
  4. Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, Del Monte M, Ciardi A, Grompone MD, et al. Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what's next? Eur Urol 2018;74:48-54 
  5. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40 
  6. Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E, Davies L, Kasivisvanathan V, Punwani S, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the prostate imaging reporting and data system era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2020;78:402-414 
  7. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017;72:177-188 
  8. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, 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;76:340-351 
  9. Purysko AS, Baroni RH, Giganti F, Costa D, Renard-Penna R, Kim CK, et al. PI-RADS version 2.1: a critical review, from the AJR special series on radiology reporting and data systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:20-32 
  10. Caglic I, Hansen NL, Slough RA, Patterson AJ, Barrett T. Evaluating the effect of rectal distension on prostate multiparametric MRI image quality. Eur J Radiol 2017;90:174-180 
  11. Lim C, Quon J, McInnes M, Shabana WM, El-Khodary M, Schieda N. Does a cleansing enema improve image quality of 3T surface coil multiparametric prostate MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:689-697 
  12. Coskun M, Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, et al. Impact of bowel preparation with Fleet'sTM enema on prostate MRI quality. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020;45:4252-4259 
  13. Plodeck V, Radosa CG, Hubner HM, Baldus C, Borkowetz A, Thomas C, et al. Rectal gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on prostate diffusion-weighted MRI with epi read-out at 3.0 T: does a preparatory micro-enema improve image quality? Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020;45:4244-4251 
  14. Ullrich T, Quentin M, Schmaltz AK, Arsov C, Rubbert C, Blondin D, et al. Hyoscine butylbromide significantly decreases motion artefacts and allows better delineation of anatomic structures in mp-MRI of the prostate. Eur Radiol 2018;28:17-23 
  15. Dyde R, Chapman AH, Gale R, Mackintosh A, Tolan DJ. Precautions to be taken by radiologists and radiographers when prescribing hyoscine-N-butylbromide. Clin Radiol 2008;63:739-743 
  16. Kabakus IM, Borofsky S, Mertan FV, Greer M, Daar D, Wood BJ, et al. Does abstinence from ejaculation before prostate MRI improve evaluation of the seminal vesicles? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:1205-1209 
  17. Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, Fulgham PF, Margolis DJ, Pinto PA, et al. Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol 2020;203:706-712 
  18. Costa DN, Yuan Q, Xi Y, Rofsky NM, Lenkinski RE, Lotan Y, et al. Comparison of prostate cancer detection at 3-T MRI with and without an endorectal coil: a prospective, paired-patient study. Urol Oncol 2016;34:255.e7-255.e13 
  19. Sackett J, Shih JH, Reese SE, Brender JR, Harmon SA, Barrett T, et al. Quality of prostate MRI: is the PI-RADS standard sufficient? Acad Radiol 2021;28:199-207 
  20. Abreu-Gomez J, Shabana W, McInnes MDF, O'Sullivan JP, Morash C, Schieda N. Regional standardization of prostate multiparametric MRI performance and reporting: is there a role for a director of prostate imaging? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;213:844-850 
  21. Rosenkrantz AB, Neil J, Kong X, Melamed J, Babb JS, Taneja SS, et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of 3D T2-weighted with conventional 2D T2-weighted imaging for image quality and tumor detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:446-452 
  22. Westphalen AC, Noworolski SM, Harisinghani M, Jhaveri KS, Raman SS, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. High-resolution 3-T endorectal prostate MRI: a multireader study of radiologist preference and perceived interpretive quality of 2D and 3D T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206:86-91 
  23. Jendoubi S, Wagner M, Montagne S, Ezziane M, Mespoulet J, Comperat E, et al. MRI for prostate cancer: can computed high b-value DWI replace native acquisitions? Eur Radiol 2019;29:5197-5204 
  24. Ream JM, Doshi AM, Dunst D, Parikh N, Kong MX, Babb JS, 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;45:1464-1475 
  25. Linhares Moreira AS, De Visschere P, Van Praet C, Villeirs G. How does PI-RADS v2.1 impact patient classification? A head-to-head comparison between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1. Acta Radiol 2021;62:839-847 
  26. Tamada T, Kido A, Takeuchi M, Yamamoto A, Miyaji Y, Kanomata N, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2019;121:108704 
  27. Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM, Arora S, Barashi NS, Barentsz JO, et al. Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the society of abdominal radiology prostate cancer disease-focused panel. Radiology 2020;296:76-84 
  28. Lim CS, Abreu-Gomez J, Carrion I, Schieda N. Prevalence of prostate cancer in PI-RADS version 2.1 transition zone atypical nodules upgraded by abnormal DWI: correlation with MRI-directed TRUS-guided targeted biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:683-690 
  29. Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM. Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 2017;283:119-129 
  30. Abreu-Gomez J, Wu M, McInnes MDF, Thornhill RE, Flood TA, Schieda N. Shape analysis of peripheral zone observations on prostate DWI: correlation to histopathology outcomes after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;214:1239-1247 
  31. Sankineni S, George AK, Brown AM, Rais-Bahrami S, Wood BJ, Merino MJ, et al. Posterior subcapsular prostate cancer: identification with mpMRI and MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:2557-2565 
  32. Brancato V, Di Costanzo G, Basso L, Tramontano L, Puglia M, Ragozzino A, et al. Assessment of DCE utility for PCa diagnosis using PI-RADS v2.1: effects on diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020;10:164 
  33. Kang Z, Min X, Weinreb J, Li Q, Feng Z, Wang L. Abbreviated biparametric versus standard multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;212:357-365 
  34. Choi MH, Kim CK, Lee YJ, Jung SE. Prebiopsy biparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS version 2: a multicenter study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;212:839-846 
  35. Lee CH, Vellayappan B, Tan CH. Comparison of diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2022;95:20210509 
  36. Byun J, Park KJ, Kim MH, Kim JK. Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and 2.1 in transition zone lesions for detection of prostate cancer: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;52:577-586 
  37. Hotker AM, Bluthgen C, Rupp NJ, Schneider AF, Eberli D, Donati OF. Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement. PLoS One 2020;15:e0239975 
  38. Xu L, Zhang G, Zhang D, Zhang X, Bai X, Yan W, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020;45:4133-4141 
  39. Rudolph MM, Baur ADJ, Cash H, Haas M, Mahjoub S, Hartenstein A, et al. Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 compared to version 2.0 for detection of peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer. Sci Rep 2020;10:15982 
  40. Wang Z, Zhao W, Shen J, Jiang Z, Yang S, Tan S, et al. PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020;45:4142-4149 
  41. Ma HY, Ahmed FS, Luk L, Martina LAP, Wenske S, Shaish H. The negative predictive value of a PI-RADS version 2 score of 1 on prostate MRI and the factors associated with a false-negative MRI study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;215:667-672 
  42. Hotker AM, Dappa E, Mazaheri Y, Ehdaie B, Zheng J, Capanu M, et al. The influence of background signal intensity changes on cancer detection in prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;212:823-829 
  43. Abreu-Gomez J, Walker D, Alotaibi T, McInnes MDF, Flood TA, Schieda N. Effect of observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in PI-RADS v2.1 assessment category 4 and 5 observations compared to adverse pathological outcomes. Eur Radiol 2020;30:4251-4261 
  44. Bonekamp D, Kohl S, Wiesenfarth M, Schelb P, Radtke JP, Gotz M, et al. Radiomic machine learning for characterization of prostate lesions with MRI: comparison to ADC values. Radiology 2018;289:128-137 
  45. Pierre T, Cornud F, Colleter L, Beuvon F, Foissac F, Delongchamps NB, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: should we use quantitative metrics to better characterize focal lesions originating in the peripheral zone? Eur Radiol 2018;28:2236-2245 
  46. Woo S, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer aggressiveness: using ADC and ADC ratio in determining Gleason score. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:114-120 
  47. Bajgiran AM, Mirak SA, Sung K, Sisk AE, Reiter RE, Raman SS. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratio versus conventional ADC for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer with 3-T MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;213:W134-W142 
  48. Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Harmon S, Smith C, Bloom J, Czarniecki M, et al. A grading system for the assessment of risk of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI. Radiology 2019;290:709-719 
  49. Park KJ, Kim MH, Kim JK. Extraprostatic tumor extension: comparison of preoperative multiparametric MRI criteria and histopathologic correlation after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2020;296:87-95 
  50. de Rooij M, Israel B, Barrett T, Giganti F, Padhani AR, Panebianco V, et al. Focus on the quality of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: synopsis of the ESUR/ESUI recommendations on quality assessment and interpretation of images and radiologists' training. Eur Urol 2020;78:483-485 
  51. Shaish H, Feltus W, Steinman J, Hecht E, Wenske S, Ahmed F. Impact of a structured reporting template on adherence to prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 and on the diagnostic performance of prostate MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:749-754 
  52. Spilseth B, Ghai S, Patel NU, Taneja SS, Margolis DJ, Rosenkrantz AB. A comparison of radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting: results from a survey of specialty societies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;210:101-107 
  53. Spilseth B, Margolis DJ, Ghai S, Patel NU, Rosenkrantz AB. Radiologists' preferences regarding content of prostate MRI reports: a survey of the Society of Abdominal Radiology. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018;43:1807-1812 
  54. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016;280:793-804 
  55. de Rooij M, Israel B, Tummers M, Ahmed HU, Barrett T, Giganti F, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists' training. Eur Radiol 2020;30:5404-5416 
  56. Turkbey B, Choyke PL. PI-QUAL, a new system for evaluating prostate magnetic resonance imaging quality: is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Eur Urol Oncol 2020;3:620-621 
  57. Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M, Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V; Precision Study Group. Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2020;3:615-619 
  58. Purysko AS, Magi-Galluzzi C, Mian OY, Sittenfeld S, Davicioni E, du Plessis M, et al. Correlation between MRI phenotypes and a genomic classifier of prostate cancer: preliminary findings. Eur Radiol 2019;29:4861-4870 
  59. Mamawala MK, Meyer AR, Landis PK, Macura KJ, Epstein JI, Partin AW, et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification of men with grade group 1 prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU Int 2020;125:861-866 
  60. Yim JH, Kim CK, Kim JH. Clinically insignificant prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance according to prostate cancer research international: active surveillance criteria: utility of PI-RADS v2. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;47:1072-1079 
  61. Luzzago S, Musi G, Catellani M, Russo A, Di Trapani E, Mistretta FA, et al. Multiparametric magnetic-resonance to confirm eligibility to an active surveillance program for low-risk prostate cancer: intermediate time results of a third referral high volume centre active surveillance protocol. Urol Int 2018;101:56-64 
  62. Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P, Allen C, Bangma C, Briganti A, 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;71:648-655 
  63. Panebianco V, Villeirs G, Weinreb JC, Turkbey BI, Margolis DJ, Richenberg J, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging for local recurrence reporting (PI-RR): international consensus-based guidelines on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer recurrence after radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol 2021;4:868-876 
  64. Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC. Prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS), version 2: a critical look. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206:1179-1183