Search

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Imaging techniques are used to identify local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) for salvage therapy and to exclude metastases that should be addressed with systemic therapy. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a reduction in the variability of acquisition, interpretation, and reporting is required to detect local PCa recurrence in men with biochemical relapse after local treatment with curative intent. OBJECTIVE: To propose a standardised method for image acquisition and assessment of PCa local recurrence using MRI after radiation therapy (RP) and radical prostatectomy (RT). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) was formulated using the existing literature. An international panel of experts conducted a nonsystematic review of the literature. The PI-RR system was created via consensus through a combination of face-to-face and online discussions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Similar to with PI-RADS, based on the best available evidence and expert opinion, the minimum acceptable MRI parameters for detection of recurrence after radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are set. Also, a simplified and standardised terminology and content of the reports that use five assessment categories to summarise the suspicion of local recurrence (PI-RR) are designed. PI-RR scores of 1 and 2 are assigned to lesions with a very low and low likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR 3 is assigned if the presence of recurrence is uncertain. PI-RR 4 and 5 are assigned for a high and very high likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR is intended to be used in routine clinical practice and to facilitate data collection and outcome monitoring for research. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides a structured reporting system (PI-RR) for MRI evaluation of local recurrence of PCa after RT and RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: A new method called PI-RR was developed to promote standardisation and reduce variations in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting

Item does not contain fulltext, The steadily increasing demand for diagnostic prostate MRI has led to concerns regarding the lack of access to and the availability of qualified MRI scanners and sufficiently experienced radiologists, radiographers, and technologists to meet the demand. Solutions must enhance operational benefits without compromising diagnostic performance, quality, and delivery of service. Solutions should also mitigate risks such as decreased reader confidence and referrer engagement. One approach may be the implementation of MRI without the use gadolinium-based contrast medium (bipara-metric MRI), but only if certain prerequisites such as high-quality imaging, expert interpretation quality, and availability of patient recall or on-table monitoring are mandated. Alternatively, or in combination, a clinical risk-based approach could be used for protocol selection, specifically, which biopsy-naive men need MRI with contrast medium (multiparametric MRI). There is a need for prospective studies in which biopsy decisions are made according to MRI without contrast enhancement. Such studies must define clinical and operational benefits and identify which patient groups can be scanned successfully without contrast enhancement. These higher-quality data are needed before the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Committee can make evidence-based recommendations about MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer workup.

Contains fulltext : 232934.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 209078.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) was developed with a consensus-based process using a combination of published data, and expert observations and opinions. In the short time since its release, numerous studies have validated the value of PI-RADS v2 but, as expected, have also identified a number of ambiguities and limitations, some of which have been documented in the literature with potential solutions offered. To address these issues, the PI-RADS Steering Committee, again using a consensus-based process, has recommended several modifications to PI-RADS v2, maintaining the framework of assigning scores to individual sequences and using these scores to derive an overall assessment category. This updated version, described in this article, is termed PI-RADS v2.1. It is anticipated that the adoption of these PI-RADS v2.1 modifications will improve inter-reader variability and simplify PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging even further. Research on the value and limitations on all components of PI-RADS v2.1 is strongly encouraged.

Contains fulltext : 165791.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 171118.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is the result of an extensive international collaborative effort. PI-RADS provides a comprehensive yet practical set of guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging that will promote the use of this modality for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. The revised PI-RADS version (PI-RADS version 2) introduces important changes to the original system used for assessing the level of suspicion for clinically significant cancer with multiparametric MR imaging. For peripheral zone abnormalities in PI-RADS version 2, the score obtained from the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) performed with high b values (>/=1400 sec/mm2) is the dominant parameter for determining the overall level of suspicion for clinically significant cancer. For transition zone abnormalities, the score obtained from T2-weighted MR imaging is dominant for overall lesion assessment. Dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging has ancillary roles in the characterization of peripheral zone lesions considered equivocal for clinically significant cancer on the basis of the DWI-ADC combination and in the detection of lesions missed with other multiparametric MR pulse sequences. Assessment with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging is also simplified, being considered positive or negative on the basis of qualitative evaluation for a focal area of rapid enhancement matching an abnormality on DWI-ADC or T2-weighted MR images. In PI-RADS version 2, MR spectroscopic imaging is not incorporated into lesion assessment. In this article, a pictorial overview is provided of the revised PI-RADS version 2 assessment categories for the likelihood of clinically significant cancer. PI-RADS version 2 is expected to evolve with time, with updated versions being released as experience in the use of PI-RADS version 2 increases and as new

Item does not contain fulltext, The Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS v2) is the product of an international collaboration of the American College of Radiology (ACR), European Society of Uroradiology (ESUR), and AdMetech Foundation. It is designed to promote global standardization and diminish variation in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) examination, and it is based on the best available evidence and expert consensus opinion. It establishes minimum acceptable technical parameters for prostate mpMRI, simplifies and standardizes terminology and content of reports, and provides assessment categories that summarize levels of suspicion or risk of clinically significant prostate cancer that can be used to assist selection of patients for biopsies and management. It is intended to be used in routine clinical practice and also to facilitate data collection and outcome monitoring for research.

Contains fulltext : 171392.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 69093.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), CONTEXT: Systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSBx) is the gold standard for detecting prostate cancer. This systematic approach is characterized by low sensitivity (39-52%) and high specificity (81-82%). Magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy techniques are becoming more and more available, but there is no current consensus on the optimal technique. OBJECTIVE: This review presents an overview of MR-guided biopsy techniques for prostate cancer detection. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Current literature was reviewed regarding MR-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection. A literature search was performed using the commercially available MedLine online search engine. Combinations of the following search and Medical Subject Headings terms were applied to retrieve relevant articles: "magnetic resonance," "prostatic neoplasms," and "biopsy." Review articles and studies describing techniques other than MR-guided biopsy were excluded. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Biopsy of the prostate is an essential procedure for determining optimal treatment. Systematic TRUSBx is the gold standard, but it fails to detect numerous tumors. Diagnostic MR imaging provides more accurate selection of regions in which tumors are suspected. Using these diagnostic images during an MR-directed biopsy procedure improves quality of the biopsy. In open MR scanners, the prebiopsy images often must be registered to the real-time biopsy images because open MR scanners do not provide optimal tissue contrast; thus, the patient must first be examined in a closed MR scanner and then biopsied in an open scanner. The advantage of open MR over closed MR is that the physician has easy patient access. With special equipment, prostate MR-guided biopsy is also possible in a closed system. Closed MR scanners can be used for the prebiopsy scan as well as for the biopsy procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a diagnostic MR examination and MR-guided biopsy is a promising tool and may be used in patients with previ