Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) MR Imaging in Peripheral Lesions in PI-RADS-4 Patients

Benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection depending on readers experience in prostate MRI

AIM

To investigate the relevance of dynamic contrast enhanced imaging (DCE) within multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) depending on reader experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with 3 T mpMRI and subsequent combined MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided targeted and systematic biopsy from January to September 2019 were included. All mpMRI examinations were read separately by two less experienced (R1; <500 prostate MRI) and two expert radiologists (R2; >5,000 prostate MRI) in consensus and blinded re-read as biparametric MRI (bpMRI). The primary endpoint was the performance comparison of mpMRI versus bpMRI of R1 and R2.

RESULTS

Fifty-three of 124 patients had csPC (43%). The PI-RADS agreement of bpMRI and mpMRI was fair for R1 (κ = 0.373) and moderate for R2 (κ = 0.508). R1 assessed 11 csPC with PI-RADS ≤3 (20.8%) on mpMRI and 12 (22.6%) on bpMRI (R2: 1 [1.9%] and 6 [11.3%], respectively). Sensitivity for csPC of mpMRI was 79.3% (NPV 79.3%) for R1 and 98.1% (NPV 97.5%) for R2 (bpMRI: 77.4% [NVP 75.5%] and 86.8% [NPV 84.4%], respectively). Specificity of mpMRI for csPC was 59.2% for R1 and 54.9% for R2 (bpMRI: 52.1% and 53.5%, respectively). Overall accuracy of mpMRI was 79.8% for R1 compared to bpMRI 66.9% (p=0.017; R2: 87.1% and 81.5%; p=0.230).

CONCLUSION

Prostate MRI benefits from reader experience. Less experienced readers missed a relevant proportion of csPC with mpMRI and even more with bpMRI. The overall performance of expert readers was comparable for mpMRI and bpMRI but DCE enabled detection of some further ISUP 2 PC.

Multiparametric MRI characteristics of prostatitis and atrophy in the peripheral zone in men without prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To analyse multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) characteristics and appearance of histopathologically proven non-cancerous intraprostatic findings focussing on quantity of prostatitis and atrophy in the peripheral zone.

METHOD

In this retrospective analysis consecutive patients with mpMRI followed by MRI/TRUS-fusion biopsy comprising targeted (TB) and systematic biopsy (SB) cores without prostate cancer (PC) at histopathology were included. Subgroup analysis was performed in younger men (≤50 years). The proportions of prostatitis and atrophy were quantified for each biopsy core based on histopathology. MRI findings in the peripheral zone (PZ) and index lesions (IL, most suspicious/representative lesion) were characterized regarding changes in T2w, ADC value, and enhancement of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) and correlated with quantity of prostatitis and atrophy.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were analysed. The median baseline characteristics were PSA 5.4 ng/ml (4.0-7.9), PI-RADS classification 3 (2-4), prostate volume 43 ml (33-57), and PSA density 0.13 ng/ml2 (0.10-0.19). Prostatitis was found in 44 % (n = 32) and atrophy in 65 % (n = 47) of cases. The quantity of atrophy demonstrated a significant correlation to T2w changes, ADC increase and DCE enhancement (p = 0.05, p = 0.05, p = 0.01), whereas quantity of prostatitis did not show any significant correlation to the MRI changes (p = 0.68, p = 0.58, p = 0.95). Quantity of prostatitis and atrophy increased with PI-RADS classification. Younger men had lower PSA (4.4 vs. 7.8 ml/ng; p < 0.001), smaller prostate volume (40 vs. 59 ml; p = 0.001), and lower PI-RADS classification (2-3 vs. 3-4; p = 0.005) and prostatitis and atrophy were less frequently observed (p ≤ 0.01, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Quantity of atrophy and prostatitis had different influence on MRI characteristics and increased within higher PI-RADS classification. Younger men had diffuse hypointense changes at T2w images, but less quantity of prostatitis and atrophy.

[Prostate cancer-multiparametric MRI and alternative approaches in intervention and therapy planning]

BACKGROUND

In recent years, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has gained importance and plays a crucial role in both personalized diagnostics and increasingly in the treatment planning for patients with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to present established and innovative applications of MRI in the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, it will explore alternative approaches and compare them in a comprehensive manner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review on the application of mpMRI for biopsy and therapy planning was conducted.

RESULTS

The integration of modern imaging techniques, especially mpMRI, into the diagnostic algorithm has revolutionized prostate cancer diagnosis. MRI and MRI-guided biopsy detect more significant prostate cancer, with the potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies and the diagnosis of clinically insignificant carcinomas. In addition, MRI provides crucial information for risk stratification and treatment planning in prostate cancer patients, both before radical prostatectomy and during active surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Multiparametric MRI offers significant added value for the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer. The advancement of MRI analysis, such as the implementation of artificial intelligence algorithms, holds the potential for further enhancing imaging diagnostics.

MRI-based analysis of different clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate of prostate imaging reporting and data system score 4 in the peripheral zone

PURPOSE

To compare the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rate between diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) 4 and DWI 3 with positive dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) (hereinafter called 'DWI 3/DCE+') lesions in the peripheral zone (PZ) and to explore the diagnostic performance of targeted biopsy (TB) or systematic biopsy (SB) in patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 lesions.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 206 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and had at least one PI-RADS 4 lesion in the PZ. All patients subsequently underwent combined magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided TB and ultrasound-guided 12-core SB. The chi-square test was used to compare the csPCa detection rates between DWI 4 and DWI 3/DCE+ lesions. Based on the TB + SB results as a standard reference, we analyzed the sensitivity, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of TB alone or SB alone.

RESULTS

Patients with DWI 4 lesions had higher csPCa detection rate than those with DWI 3/DCE+ lesions when using TB + SB, TB, and SB, and the differences were significant for TB + SB (72.22 vs. 54.84%, p = 0.015) or SB (65.97 vs. 46.77%, p = 0.010). For DWI 3/DCE+ patients whose prostate-specific antigen levels ranged from 4 to 10 ng/mL, TB alone showed the highest negative predictive value (95% Cl 78.12-100).

CONCLUSIONS

DWI 4 tends to have worse results than DWI 3/DCE+. TB has great diagnostic performances in DWI 3/DCE+ patients, especially for those prostate-specific antigen ranging from 4 to 10 ng/mL.

Impact of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in 1.5 T versus 3 T MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection

PURPOSE

This study analyzes the value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE) of the prostate on 1.5 T and 3 T examinations in patients within PI-RADS category 4.

METHODS

In this retrospective, bi-centric, cohort study all consecutive patients classified as PI-RADS 4 in mpMRI with 100 verified prostate cancers (PCa) in subsequent MRI/US-guided fusion biopsy were included for 1.5 T and 3 T, each. PCa detection in index lesions (IL) upgraded to PI-RADS 4 based on positive DCE findings was compared between 1.5 T and 3 T. Secondary objectives are subgroup analysis of PZ lesions and comparison of ISUP grade group distribution between 1.5 T and 3 T.

RESULTS

In total, 293 patients within PI-RADS category 4, including 152 (mean 66 ± 8y; median PSA 6.4 ng/ml;116 PZ IL) in the 1.5 T group and 141 (mean 65 ± 8y; median PSA 7.2 ng/ml;100 PZ IL) in the 3 T group were included. Overall amount of PCa (66 % vs 71 %; p = 0.346) and portion of upgraded IL (28 % vs 21 %; p = 0.126) did not differ significantly. At 1.5 T PCa detection was higher in upgraded PZ lesions compared to 3 T (23 % vs 14 %; p = 0.048). The amount of upgraded PZ lesions with ISUP grade group 2-5 PCa was significantly higher at 1.5 T versus 3 T (13.8 % vs 4.0 %; p = 0.007). 33 % (11/33; 1.5 T) and 32 % (10/31; 3 T) of the ISUP grade group 1 PCa of the PZ lesions were detected in upgraded lesions (10% of all PZ index lesions, respectively).

CONCLUSION

DCE enabled the detection of a substantial amount of additional clinically significant PCa in prostate mpMRI at 1.5 T. The effect was smaller at 3 T and was accompanied in relation to 1.5 T by higher risk of overdiagnosis due to detection of additional low-risk PCa.

Head-to-head comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric MRI of the prostate before robot-assisted transperineal fusion prostate biopsy

Purpose

Prostate biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) might be an alternative to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI, including dynamic contrast imaging, DCE) to detect and guide targeted biopsy in patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). However, there is no upgrading peripheral zone PI-RADS 3 to PI-RADS 4 without DCE in bpMRI. The aim of this study was to evaluate bpMRI against mpMRI in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) scheduled for robot-assisted-transperineal fusion-prostate biopsy (RA-TB).

Methods

Retrospective single-center-study of 563 biopsy-naïve men (from 01/2015 to 09/2018, mean PSA 9.7 ± 6.5 ng/mL) with PI-RADSv2.1 conform mpMRI at 3 T before RA-TB. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as ISUP grade ≥ 2 in any core. Two experienced readers independently evaluated images according to PI-RADSv2.1 criteria (separate readings for bpMRI and mpMRI sequences, 6-month interval). Reference standard was histology from RA-TB.

Results

PI-RADS 2 was scored in 5.1% of cases (3.4% cancer/3.4% csPCa), PI-RADS 3 in 16.9% (32.6%/3.2%), PI-RADS 4 in 57.6% (66.1%/58.3%) and PI-RADS 5 in 20.4% of cases (79.1%/74.8%). For mpMRI/bpMRI test comparison, sensitivity was 99.0%/97.1% (p < 0.001), specificity 47.5%/61.2% (p < 0.001), PPV 69.5%/75.1% (p < 0.001) and NPV 97.6%/94.6% (n.s.). csPCa was considered gold standard. 35 cases without cancer were upgraded to PI-RADS 4 (mpMRI) and six PI-RADS 3 cases with csPCa were not upgraded (bpMRI).

Conclusion

In patients planned for RA-TB with elevated PSA and clinical suspicion for PCa, specificity was higher in bpMRI vs. mpMRI, which could solve constrains regarding time and contrast agent.

Single center analysis of an advisable control interval for follow-up of patients with PI-RADS category 3 in multiparametric MRI of the prostate

To evaluate if follow-up mpMRI scans of patients in PI-RADS category 3 are safe enough to omit or delay prostate biopsy in the future and to determine an optimal control interval. This retrospective single center study includes consecutive PI-RADS category 3 patients with one or more follow-up mpMRI (T2WI, DWI, DCE) and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic TRUS-guided biopsy between 2012 and 2018. Primary study objective was the verification of a significant PI-RADS category upgrade in follow-up mpMRI in patients with subsequent PCA positive biopsy versus patients with negative biopsy. Further objectives were development of the PI-RADS category and clinical parameters between initial and follow-up mpMRI in the context of histopathologic results and time interval. Eighty-nine patients (median PSA 6.6 ng/ml; PSAD 0.13 ng/ml/ml) were finally included (follow-up period 31 ± 18 months). 19 cases had PCA (median PSA 7.8 ng/ml; PSAD 0.14 ng/ml/ml). 4 cases had csPCA (median PSA 5.4 ng/ml; PSAD 0.13 ng/ml/ml) for which there was a significant PI-RADS upgrade after 12-24 months (mean 3.75; p = 0.01) compared to patients without PCA (mean 2.74). Without PCA the mean PI-RADS category decreased after 25-36 months (mean 2.74; p = 0.02). Clinical parameters did not change significantly except a PSAD increase for PCA patients after 24 months. Patients within PI-RADS category 3 may not need prompt biopsy since those with PCA reliably demonstrate a PI-RADS category upgrade in follow-up mpMRI after 12-24 months. PI-RADS 3 patients with negative biopsy do not benefit from follow-up mpMRI earlier than 24 months.

MRI Based Radiomics Compared With the PI-RADS V2.1 in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Biparametric vs Multiparametric MRI

Purpose

To compare the performance of radiomics to that of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 scoring system in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) vs. multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).

Methods

A total of 204 patients with pathological results were enrolled between January 2018 and December 2019, with 142 patients in the training cohort and 62 patients in the testing cohort. The radiomics model was compared with the PI-RADS v2.1 for the diagnosis of csPCa based on bpMRI and mpMRI by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results

The radiomics model based on bpMRI and mpMRI signatures showed high predictive efficiency but with no significant differences (AUC = 0.975 vs 0.981, p=0.687 in the training cohort, and 0.953 vs 0.968, p=0.287 in the testing cohort, respectively). In addition, the radiomics model outperformed the PI-RADS v2.1 in the diagnosis of csPCa regardless of whether bpMRI (AUC = 0.975 vs. 0.871, p= 0.030 for the training cohort and AUC = 0.953 vs. 0.853, P = 0.024 for the testing cohort) or mpMRI (AUC = 0.981 vs. 0.880, p= 0.030 for the training cohort and AUC = 0.968 vs. 0.863, P = 0.016 for the testing cohort) was incorporated.

Conclusions

Our study suggests the performance of bpMRI- and mpMRI-based radiomics models show no significant difference, which indicates that omitting DCE imaging in radiomics can simplify the process of analysis. Adding radiomics to PI-RADS v2.1 may improve the performance to predict csPCa.

1.5 vs 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review of Favorite Clinical Applications for Both Field Strengths-Part 1

ABSTRACT

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems with a field strength of 3 T have been offered by all leading manufacturers for approximately 2 decades and are increasingly used in clinical diagnostics despite higher costs. Technologically, MRI systems operating at 3 T have reached a high standard in recent years, as well as the 1.5-T devices that have been in use for a longer time. For modern MRI systems with 3 T, more complexity is required, especially for the magnet and the radiofrequency (RF) system (with multichannel transmission). Many clinical applications benefit greatly from the higher field strength due to the higher signal yield (eg, imaging of the brain or extremities), but there are also applications where the disadvantages of 3 T might outweigh the advantages (eg, lung imaging or examinations in the presence of implants). This review describes some technical features of modern 1.5-T and 3-T whole-body MRI systems, and reports on the experience of using both types of devices in different clinical settings, with all sections written by specialist radiologists in the respective fields.This first part of the review includes an overview of the general physicotechnical aspects of both field strengths and elaborates the special conditions of diffusion imaging. Many relevant aspects in the application areas of musculoskeletal imaging, abdominal imaging, and prostate diagnostics are discussed.

Arterial spin labelling as a gadolinium-free alternative in the detection of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the capability of Gadolinium-free arterial spin labelling (ASL) sequences as novel, contrast-free, non-invasive alternative perfusion imaging method to differentiate prostate cancer (PCA) from benign prostate tissue compared to conventional DCE MRI.

METHODS

Thirty men with histologically confirmed PCA were included in this prospectively enrolled single center cohort study. All patients received multiparametric MRI (T2, DWI, DCE) at 3 T with additional ASL of the PCA lesion. Primary endpoint was differentiability of PCA versus benign prostate tissue by signal intensities (SI) and contrast ratios (CR) in ASL in comparison to DCE. For DCE also Signal-Enhancement-Ratio (SER) of native and early contrast enhancement SI was assessed. Secondary objectives were differences regarding PCA localisation in peripheral (PZ) or transition zone (TZ) and PCA detection.

RESULTS

In both, ASL and DCE, average SI of PCA differed significantly from SI in benign tissue in the TZ and PZ (p < 0,01, respectively). ASL had significantly higher CR discerning PCA and benign tissue in PZ and TZ (PZ = 5.19; TZ = 6.45) compared to DCE SI (PZ = 1.61; TZ = 1.43) and DCE SER (PZ = 1.59; TZ = 1.43) (p < 0.01, respectively). In subjective evaluation, PCA could be detected in ASL in 28 patients, compared to 29 in DCE.

CONCLUSION

ASL had significantly higher CR differentiating PCA from benign tissue in PZ and TZ compared to DCE. Visual detection of PCA does not differ significantly between the two sequences. As perfusion gadolinium-based contrast media is seen more critical in the last few years, ASL seems to be a promising alternative to DCE in PCA detection.

mpMRI of the Prostate (MR-Prostatography): Updated Recommendations of the DRG and BDR on Patient Preparation and Scanning Protocol

The Working Group Uroradiology and Urogenital Diagnosis of the German Roentgen Society (DRG) revised and updated the recommendations for preparation and scanning protocol of the multiparametric MRI of the Prostate in a consensus process and harmonized it with the managing board of German Roentgen Society and Professional Association of the German Radiologist (BDR e. V.). These detailed recommendation define the referenced "validated quality standards" of the German S3-Guideline Prostate Cancer and describe in detail the topic 1. anamnestic datas, 2. termination of examinations and preparation of examinations, 3. examination protocol and 4. MRI-(in-bore)-biopsy. KEY POINTS:: · The recommendations for preparation and scanning protocol of the multiparametric MRI of the Prostate were revised and updated in a consensus process and harmonized with the managing board of German Roentgen Society (DRG) and Professional Asssociation of the German Radiologist (BDR).. · Detailed recommendations are given for topic 1. anamnestic datas, 2. termination and preparation of examinations, 3. examination protocoll and 4. MRI-(in-bore)-biopsy.. · These recommendations define the referenced "validated quality standards" of the German S3-Guideline Prostate Cancer.. CITATION FORMAT: · Franiel T, Asbach P, Beyersdorff D et al. mpMRI of the Prostate (MR-Prostatography): Updated Recommendations of the DRG and BDR on Patient Preparation and Examination Protocol. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 763 - 776.

Diagnostic Ability of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) now has been used to diagnose prostate cancer (PCa). Equivocal lesions are defined as PIRADS category 3 or a Likert scale of 1 to 5 category 3 lesions. Currently, there are no clear recommendations for the management of these lesions. This study aimed to estimate the diagnostic capacity of DCE-MRI for PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in equivocal lesions.

Materials and methods

Two researchers searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science to identify studies that met our subject. We searched for articles that mention the accuracy of the diagnosis of DCE-MRI for PCa or csPCa in equivocal lesions and used histopathological results as the reference standard. We used a tool (the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool) to evaluate the quality of the studies that we screened out. Meta-regression was used to explore the reasons for heterogeneity in results.

Results

Ten articles were eventually included in our study. The sensitivity, specificity and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for DCE-MRI in diagnosing csPCa were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.56–0.76), 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46–0.68). The sensitivity and specificity and 95% CI for DCE-MRI in diagnosing PCa were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.46–0.68), 0.58 (95% CI, 0.45–0.70). The areas under the curve (AUC) of DCE-MRI were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63–0.71) and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.55–0.64) while diagnosing csPCa and PCa. Through meta-regression, we found that study design, magnetic field strength, the definition of csPCa, and the scoring system were the sources of heterogeneity.

Conclusion

The results of our study indicate that the role of DCE-MRI in equivocal lesions may be limited.

Evaluation of a multiparametric MRI radiomic-based approach for stratification of equivocal PI-RADS 3 and upgraded PI-RADS 4 prostatic lesions

Despite the key-role of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer (PCa), this system remains to be affected by several limitations, primarily associated with the interpretation of equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions and with the debated role of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI), which is only used to upgrade peripheral PI-RADS category 3 lesions to PI-RADS category 4 if enhancement is focal. We aimed at investigating the usefulness of radiomics for detection of PCa lesions (Gleason Score ≥ 6) in PI-RADS 3 lesions and in peripheral PI-RADS 3 upgraded to PI-RADS 4 lesions (upPI-RADS 4). Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) data of patients who underwent prostatic mpMRI between April 2013 and September 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. Biopsy results were used as gold standard. PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4 lesions were re-scored according to the PI-RADS v2.1 before and after DCE-MRI evaluation. Radiomic features were extracted from T2-weighted MRI (T2), Apparent diffusion Coefficient (ADC) map and DCE-MRI subtracted images using PyRadiomics. Feature selection was performed using Wilcoxon-ranksum test and Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance (mRMR). Predictive models were constructed for PCa detection in PI-RADS 3 and upPI-RADS 4 lesions using at each step an imbalance-adjusted bootstrap resampling (IABR) on 1000 samples. 41 PI-RADS 3 and 32 upPI-RADS 4 lesions were analyzed. Among 293 radiomic features, the top selected features derived from T2 and ADC. For PI-RADS 3 stratification, second order model showed higher performances (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve-AUC- = 80%), while for upPI-RADS 4 stratification, first order model showed higher performances respect to superior order models (AUC = 89%). Our results support the significant role of T2 and ADC radiomic features for PCa detection in lesions scored as PI-RADS 3 and upPI-RADS 4. Radiomics models showed high diagnostic efficacy in classify PI-RADS 3 and upPI-RADS 4 lesions, outperforming PI-RADS v2.1 performance.

Perspective: a critical assessment of PI-RADS 2.1

PURPOSE

In this article we take a critical look at the key changes of the newest edition of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 (v2.1) and indicate future directions for further development of the system.

CONCLUSION

PI-RADS v2.1 addresses some of the shortcomings of its widely embraced precursor version 2, largely to simplify interpretation and improve interobserver agreement without changing the fundamental acquisition and scoring guidelines. Biparametric MRI is acknowledged in the newest version, but multiparametric MRI including dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging is still recommended for most scenarios. Management recommendations and guidance on evaluation of follow-up MRI's are still not included in the system.

Roundtable: arguments in support of using multi-parametric prostate MRI protocol

There is increasing evidence to suggest the value of bi-parametric prostate MRI to replace multi-parametric MRI, which includes the dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence. In this review, we discuss the value of DCE in select scenarios, specifically in resolving equivocal cases, improving the diagnostic accuracy in the inexperienced reader, rescuing exams in the settings of failed T2W and DWI, detecting biochemical recurrence, while imposing minimal to no risk to the patient with respect to IV gadolinium use, specifically group II agents.

How Fast Can We Go: Abbreviated Prostate MR Protocols

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), composed of T2WI, DWI, and DCE sequences, is effective in identifying prostate cancer (PCa), but length and cost preclude its application as a PCa screening tool. Here we review abbreviated MRI protocols that shorten or omit conventional mpMRI components to reduce scan time and expense without forgoing diagnostic accuracy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The DCE sequence, which plays a limited diagnostic role in PI-RADS, is eliminated in variations of the biparametric MRI (bpMRI). T2WI, the lengthiest sequence, is truncated by only acquiring the axial plane or utilizing 3D acquisition with subsequent 2D reconstruction. DW-EPI_SMS further accelerates DWI acquisition. The fastest protocol described to date consists of just DW-EPI_SMS and axial-only 2D T2WI and runs less than 5 min. Abbreviated protocols can mitigate scan expense and increase scan access, allowing prostate MRI to become an efficient PCa screening tool.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate and mpMRI-guided biopsy have proved to be a valuable part of the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer. This review reports on the current results in terms of clinical performance of these diagnostic tools and their role in clinical decision-making.