ESR Essentials: using the right scoring system in prostate MRI-practice recommendations by ESUR.
Classification; management
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate cancer
Standardization
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 May 2024
23 May 2024
Historique:
received:
29
01
2024
accepted:
08
04
2024
revised:
02
04
2024
medline:
23
5
2024
pubmed:
23
5
2024
entrez:
23
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
MRI has gained prominence in the diagnostic workup of prostate cancer (PCa) patients, with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) being widely used for cancer detection. Beyond PI-RADS, other MRI-based scoring tools have emerged to address broader aspects within the PCa domain. However, the multitude of available MRI-based grading systems has led to inconsistencies in their application within clinical workflows. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) assesses the likelihood of clinically significant radiological changes of PCa during active surveillance, and the Prostate Imaging for Local Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) scoring system evaluates the risk of local recurrence after whole-gland therapies with curative intent. Underlying any system is the requirement to assess image quality using the Prostate Imaging Quality Scoring System (PI-QUAL). This article offers practicing radiologists a comprehensive overview of currently available scoring systems with clinical evidence supporting their use for managing PCa patients to enhance consistency in interpretation and facilitate effective communication with referring clinicians. KEY POINTS: Assessing image quality is essential for all prostate MRI interpretations and the PI-QUAL score represents the standardized tool for this purpose. Current urological clinical guidelines for prostate cancer diagnosis and localization recommend adhering to the PI-RADS recommendations. The PRECISE and PI-RR scoring systems can be used for assessing radiological changes of prostate cancer during active surveillance and the likelihood of local recurrence after radical treatments respectively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38780764
doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10792-7
pii: 10.1007/s00330-024-10792-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Padhani AR, Schoots IG (2023) Imaging-based diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for prostate cancer in the coming decades. Radiology 307:e222990. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.222990
doi: 10.1148/radiol.222990
pubmed: 37249432
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M et al (2020) 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 3:615–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.06.007
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.06.007
pubmed: 32646850
Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P et al (2017) 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 71:648–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011
pubmed: 27349615
Panebianco V, Villeirs G, Weinreb JC et al (2021) 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 4:868–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.01.003
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.01.003
pubmed: 33582104
Elwenspoek MMC, Sheppard AL, McInnes MDF et al (2019) Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy alone for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2:e198427. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8427
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8427
pubmed: 31390032
pmcid: 6686781
EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. ISBN 978-94-92671-16-5.
Cuocolo R, Verde F, Ponsiglione A et al (2021) Clinically significant prostate cancer detection with biparametric MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 216:608–621. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23219
doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.23219
pubmed: 33502226
Schoots IG, Barentsz JO, Bittencourt LK et al (2021) PI-RADS committee position on MRI without contrast medium in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer: narrative review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 216:3–19. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24268
doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24268
pubmed: 32812795
Schoots IG, Padhani AR (2021) Risk‐adapted biopsy decision based on prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate‐specific antigen density for enhanced biopsy avoidance in first prostate cancer diagnostic evaluation. BJU Int 127:175–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15277
doi: 10.1111/bju.15277
pubmed: 33089586
Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G et al (2019) PI-RADS steering committee: the PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 292:464–474. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182946
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182946
pubmed: 31184561
Park KJ, Choi SH, Kim M-H et al (2021) Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 for diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 54:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27546
doi: 10.1002/jmri.27546
pubmed: 33576169
Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F et al (2022) Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 25:256–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
pubmed: 34230616
Drost F-JH, Osses D, Nieboer D et al (2020) 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 77:78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023
pubmed: 31326219
Brembilla G, Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A et al (2020) Interreader variability in prostate MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1. Eur Radiol 30:3383–3392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06654-2
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06654-2
pubmed: 32052171
de Rooij M, Israël B, Barrett T et al (2020) 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 78:483–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.023
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.023
pubmed: 32591100
Giganti F, Kirkham A, Kasivisvanathan V et al (2021) Understanding PI-QUAL for prostate MRI quality: a practical primer for radiologists. Insights Imaging 12:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-00996-6
doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-00996-6
pubmed: 33932167
pmcid: 8088425
Brembilla G, Lavalle S, Parry T et al (2023) Impact of Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at biopsy. Eur J Radiol 164:110849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110849
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110849
pubmed: 37141845
Ponsiglione A, Stanzione A, Califano G et al (2023) MR image quality in local staging of prostate cancer: role of PI-QUAL in the detection of extraprostatic extension. Eur J Radiol 166:110973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110973
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110973
pubmed: 37453275
Briganti A, Fossati N, Catto JWF et al (2018) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology Position in 2018. Eur Urol 74:357–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008
pubmed: 29937198
Giganti F, Kirkham A, Allen C et al (2021) Update on multiparametric prostate MRI during active surveillance: current and future trends and role of the PRECISE recommendations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 216:943–951. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23985
doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.23985
pubmed: 32755219
Englman C, Maffei D, Allen C et al (2024) PRECISE Version 2: updated recommendations for reporting prostate magnetic resonance imaging in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.014
Rajwa P, Pradere B, Quhal F et al (2021) Reliability of serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect prostate cancer progression during active surveillance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 80:549–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.001
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.001
pubmed: 34020828
Padhani AR, Rouvière O, Schoots IG (2021) Magnetic resonance imaging for tailoring the need to biopsy during follow-up for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 80:564–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.024
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.024
pubmed: 34053779
Roach M, Hanks G, Thames H et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:965–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
pubmed: 16798415
Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2020) Biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer guidelines panel recommendations. Eur Urol Focus 6:231–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.06.004
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.06.004
pubmed: 31248850
Pecoraro M, Turkbey B, Purysko AS et al (2022) Diagnostic accuracy and observer agreement of the MRI Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting assessment score. Radiology 304:342–350. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.212252
doi: 10.1148/radiol.212252
pubmed: 35536130
Giganti F, Dickinson L, Orczyk C et al (2023) Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB): a proposal for a scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate after focal therapy. Eur Urol Oncol 6:629–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.007
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.007
pubmed: 37210343
Light A, Mayor N, Cullen E et al (2024) The Transatlantic recommendations for prostate gland evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging after focal therapy (TARGET): a systematic review and international consensus recommendations. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.02.001
Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Harmon S et al (2019) A grading system for the assessment of risk of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI. Radiology 290:709–719. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181278
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181278
pubmed: 30667329