The role of MRI in prostate cancer management: pushing the diagnostic frontier
Abstract
The role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic work-up has drastically changed over the last 40 years. Years of innovations have produced outstanding advances in diagnostic imaging and MR-guided interventional procedures. In early 2019, the updated version of the PI-RADS score system was released. The same year a real breakthrough occurred when the updated version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines was released: MRI is currently recommended as the first line imaging modality for biopsy-naive patients. Among all the published studies supporting the use of MRI in the diagnostics of PCa, robust trials have played a pivotal role: The PROMIS study, the MRI-FIRST study, the PRECISION study and the 4M trial. The success of MRI is heavily dependent on high-quality image acquisition and interpretation to minimise the number of equivocal cases, standardise negative MRIs, reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment and promote biopsy improvement and focal therapeutic approaches. Future perspectives include the spread of non-contrast MRI as the most efficient way to face the expected upcoming large number of MRI requests for PCa diagnosis and the application of artificial intelligence-based tools that might profoundly shape modern imaging, with major implications for medical practice. The goal is to review PCa natural history and management, with an insight on MRI applications and future perspectives.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Steyn JH, Smith FW. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate. Br J Urol 1982; 54: 726-728.
Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, et al. The evolution of MRI of the prostate: The past, the present, and the future. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 213: 384-396.
Valerio M, Zini C, Fierro D, et al. 3T multiparametric MRI of the prostate: Does intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion imaging have a role in the detection and stratification of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone? Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 790-794.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16-40.
Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, et al. 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.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, 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.
Mottet RCN, van den Bergh N, Brier E, et al. EAU Guidelines: Prostate Cancer. EAU Guidel 2019. 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042.
Rodríguez Sánchez L, Macek P, Barbé Y, et al. Re: MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. Eur Urol 2020; 78: 469-470.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet 2017; 389: 815-822.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-1777.
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 100-109.
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve nen with elevated prostate-specific antigen: A large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 570–578.
Stabile A, Giganti F, Kasivisvanathan V, et al. Factors influencing variability in the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: A systematic literature review. Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 3: 145-167.
Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E, 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.
Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, et al. Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: What’s next? Eur Urol 2018; 74: 48-54.
Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM, 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.
Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Barentsz J, et al. Pitfalls in interpreting mp-MRI of the prostate: A pictorial review with pathologic correlation. Insights Imaging 2015; 6: 611-630.
Panebianco V, Giganti F, Kitzing YX, et al. An update of pitfalls in prostate mpMRI: a practical approach through the lens of PI-RADS v. 2 guidelines. Insights Imaging 2018; 9: 87-101.
Barkovich EJ, Shankar PR, Westphalen AC. A systematic review of the existing prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADSv2) literature and subset meta-analysis of PI-RADSv2 categories stratified by Gleason scores. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 212: 847-854.
Park KJ, Choi SH, Lee JS, et al. Risk stratification of prostate cancer according to PI-RADS version 2 categories: Meta-analysis for prospective studies. J Urol 2020; 204(6): 1141-1149.
Drost F-JH, Osses D, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 78-94.
Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Manenti G, et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy: technical features and preliminary results. Radiol Med (Torino) 2015; 120: 571–578.
Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus Systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2019; 76: 284-303.
Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: A systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 2017; 71: 517-531.
Schoots IG, Barentsz JO, Bittencourt LK, et al. PI-RADS committee position on MRI without contrast medium in biopsy naive men with suspected prostate cancer: A narrative review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020: AJR.20.24268.
Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, et al. Head-to-head comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MRI for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 211: W226-241.
Alabousi M, Salameh JP, Gusenbauer K, et al. Biparametric vs multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2019; 124: 209-220.
Liang Z, Hu R, Yang Y, et al. Is dynamic contrast enhancement still necessary in multiparametric magnetic resonance for diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 9: 553-573.
Niu X, Chen X, Chen Z, et al. Diagnostic performance of biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 211: 369-378.
Kang Z, Min X, Weinreb J, et al. 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.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, 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.
Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: Images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 2016; 278: 563-577.
Stoyanova R, Takhar M, Tschudi Y, et al. Prostate cancer radiomics and the promise of radiogenomics. Transl Cancer Res 2016; 5: 432-447.
Bonekamp D, Kohl S, Wiesenfarth M, et al. Radiomic machine learning for characterization of prostate lesions with MRI: Comparison to ADC Values. Radiology 2018; 289: 128–137.
Varghese B, Chen F, Hwang D, et al. Objective risk stratification of prostate cancer using machine learning and radiomics applied to multiparametric magnetic resonance images. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 1570.
Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, et al. Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men: The biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer (BIDOC) study. JAMA Netw Open 2018; 1: e180219.
Thompson IM. Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or lower. JAMA 2005; 294: 66.
Nam RK, Wallis CJD, Stojcic-Bendavid J, et al. A pilot study to evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer screening in the General Population. J Urol 2016; 196: 361-366.
Grenabo Bergdahl A, Wilderäng U, Aus G, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening: A pilot study within the Göteborg randomised screening trial. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 566-573.
Alberts A, Schoots I, Drost FJ, et al. Value of magnetic resonance imaging in population-based prostate cancer screening: Comparison of 3 biopsy strategies in the 5th screening round of the ERSPC Rotterdam. Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16: e867-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-9056(17)30560-2.
Eldred-Evans D, Tam H, Sokhi H, et al. Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test? Nat Rev Urol 2020; 17: 526-539.
Panebianco V, Pecoraro M, Fiscon G, et al. Prostate cancer screening research can benefit from network medicine: an emerging awareness. Npj Syst Biol Appl 2020; 6: 13.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36162/hjr.v5i4.405
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.