» Articles » PMID: 31172275

The Primacy of Multiparametric MRI in Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer

Overview
Journal Eur Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2019 Jun 8
PMID 31172275
Citations 33
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) became recognised in investigating those with suspected prostate cancer between 2010 and 2012; in the USA, the preventative task force moratorium on PSA screening was a strong catalyst. In a few short years, it has been adopted into daily urological and oncological practice. The pace of clinical uptake, born along by countless papers proclaiming high accuracy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, has sparked much debate about the timing of mpMRI within the traditional biopsy-driven clinical pathways. There are strongly held opposing views on using mpMRI as a triage test regarding the need for biopsy and/or guiding the biopsy pattern.

Objective: To review the evidence base and present a position paper on the role of mpMRI in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

Methods: A subgroup of experts from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group conducted literature review and face to face and electronic exchanges to draw up a position statement.

Results: This paper considers diagnostic strategies for clinically significant prostate cancer; current national and international guidance; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI in detection of clinically significant and clinically insignificant neoplasms; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI on biopsy strategies and targeting; the notion of mpMRI within a wider risk evaluation on a patient by patient basis; the problems that beset mpMRI including inter-observer variability.

Conclusions: The paper concludes with a set of suggestions for using mpMRI to influence who to biopsy and who not to biopsy at diagnosis.

Key Points: • Adopt mpMRI as the first, and primary, investigation in the workup of men with suspected prostate cancer. • PI-RADS assessment categories 1 and 2 have a high negative predictive value in excluding significant disease, and systematic biopsy may be postponed, especially in men with low-risk of disease following additional risk stratification. • PI-RADS assessment category lesions 4 and 5 should be targeted; PI-RADS assessment category lesion 3 may be biopsied as a target, as part of systematic biopsies or may be observed depending on risk stratification.

Citing Articles

Correction: Can we rely on magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and surgical planning? Comprehensive analysis of a large cohort of patients undergoing transperineal mapped biopsies.

Diez N, de Pablos-Rodriguez P, Sanchez-Mateos Manzaneque D, Martin Garcia M, Gomez P, Benito M World J Urol. 2025; 43(1):164.

PMID: 40072605 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-025-05534-3.


Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in PI-RADS 3 Lesions Using T2w-Derived Radiomics Feature Maps in 3T Prostate MRI.

Jensen L, Kim D, Elgeti T, Steffen I, Schaafs L, Haas M Curr Oncol. 2024; 31(11):6814-6828.

PMID: 39590134 PMC: 11592716. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31110503.


Evaluating the Role of Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer trial - phase 1: Early experience of micro-ultrasound in the United Kingdom.

Parker P, Twiddy M, Rigby A, Whybrow P, Simms M Ultrasound. 2024; 32(4):244-252.

PMID: 39493923 PMC: 11528729. DOI: 10.1177/1742271X231226302.


Can we rely on magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and surgical planning? Comprehensive analysis of a large cohort of patients undergoing transperineal mapped biopsies.

Diez N, de Pablos-Rodriguez P, Sanchez-Mateos Manzaneque D, Martin Garcia M, Gomez P, Benito M World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):548.

PMID: 39347947 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05233-5.


Comparative Analysis of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and Diffusion Tensor Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.

Karakoishin K, Zholdybay Z, Ainakulova A, Dauytova Y, Kamhen V Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024; 25(7):2397-2408.

PMID: 39068573 PMC: 11480594. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.7.2397.


References
1.
Gulati R, Cheng H, Lange P, Nelson P, Etzioni R . Screening Men at Increased Risk for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Model Estimates of Benefits and Harms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016; 26(2):222-227. PMC: 5296376. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0434. View

2.
Ahmed H, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown L, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar M . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10071):815-822. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. View

3.
Sun C, Chatterjee A, Yousuf A, Antic T, Eggener S, Karczmar G . Comparison of T2-Weighted Imaging, DWI, and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Calculation of Prostate Cancer Index Lesion Volume: Correlation With Whole-Mount Pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 212(2):351-356. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20147. View

4.
Carroll P, Mohler J . NCCN Guidelines Updates: Prostate Cancer and Prostate Cancer Early Detection. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018; 16(5S):620-623. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0036. View

5.
Bratan F, Melodelima C, Souchon R, Dinh A, Mege-Lechevallier F, Crouzet S . How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume?. Radiology. 2014; 275(1):144-54. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140524. View