과제정보
This study was supported by Samsung Biomedical Research Institute Grant (#OTX0001931).
참고문헌
- Gupta RT, Mehta KA, Turkbey B, Verma S. PI-RADS: past, present, and future. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020; 52:33-53 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26896
- 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 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2022.0059
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.042
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24495
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.029
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24833
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02487-6
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02600-9
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4940-7
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2008.02.008
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16278
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000617
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.02.009
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.01.031
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21111
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3217
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14065
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06085-z
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25451
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185120941831
- 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
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020190646
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23932
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161124
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.22318
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0426-8
- 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
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20103
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20498
- 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
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27080
- 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
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02738-6
- 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
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02724-y
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.22784
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20295
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06725-9
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018173064
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5107-2
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15894
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21365
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181278
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192133
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.023
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.01.034
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18241
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1393-z
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152542
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.07.003
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.06.007
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06114-x
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15033
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25856
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1159/000488772
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.01.003
- 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 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15765