The Diagnostic Value of BpMRI in Prostate Cancer: Benefits and Limitations Compared to MpMRI

Overview

Journal Bioengineering (Basel)

Date 2024 Oct 25

PMID 39451382

Authors

Roxana Iacob

Diana Manolescu

Emil Robert Stoicescu

Simona Cerbu

Razvan Bardan

Laura Andreea Ghenciu

Alin Cumpanas

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men and a leading cause of death worldwide. Early detection is vital, as it often presents with vague symptoms such as nocturia and poor urinary stream. Diagnostic tools like PSA tests, ultrasound, PET-CT, and mpMRI are essential for prostate cancer management. The PI-RADS system helps assess malignancy risk based on imaging. While mpMRI, which includes T1, T2, DWI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE), is the standard, bpMRI offers a contrast-free alternative using only T2 and DWI. This reduces costs, acquisition time, and the risk of contrast-related side effects but has limitations in detecting higher-risk PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions. This study compared bpMRI's diagnostic accuracy to mpMRI, focusing on prostate volume and PI-RADS scoring. Both methods showed strong inter-rater agreement for prostate volume (ICC 0.9963), confirming bpMRI's reliability in this aspect. However, mpMRI detected more complex conditions, such as periprostatic fat infiltration and iliac lymphadenopathy, which bpMRI missed. While bpMRI offers advantages like reduced cost and no contrast use, it is less effective for higher-risk lesions, making mpMRI more comprehensive.

References

Rosenkrantz A, Ginocchio L, Cornfeld D, Froemming A, Gupta R, Turkbey B . Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. Radiology. 2016; 280(3):793-804. PMC: 5006735. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016152542. View

Chun F, Hutterer G, Perrotte P, Gallina A, Valiquette L, Benard F . Distribution of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and percentage free PSA in a contemporary screening cohort with no evidence of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007; 100(1):37-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06923.x. View

Rawla P . Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer. World J Oncol. 2019; 10(2):63-89. PMC: 6497009. DOI: 10.14740/wjon1191. View

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

Iacob R, Stoicescu E, Cerbu S, Manolescu D, Bardan R, Cumpanas A . Could Biparametric MRI Replace Multiparametric MRI in the Management of Prostate Cancer?. Life (Basel). 2023; 13(2). PMC: 9961917. DOI: 10.3390/life13020465. View

Schick F, Pieper C, Kupczyk P, Almansour H, Keller G, Springer F . 1.5 vs 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review of Favorite Clinical Applications for Both Field Strengths-Part 1. Invest Radiol. 2021; 56(11):680-691. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000812. View

Brembilla G, Giganti F, Sidhu H, Imbriaco M, Mallett S, Stabile A . Diagnostic Accuracy of Abbreviated Bi-Parametric MRI (a-bpMRI) for Prostate Cancer Detection and Screening: A Multi-Reader Study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(2). PMC: 8871361. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12020231. View

Junker D, Steinkohl F, Fritz V, Bektic J, Tokas T, Aigner F . Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric MRI of the prostate: are gadolinium-based contrast agents needed for routine examinations?. World J Urol. 2018; 37(4):691-699. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2428-y. View

OShea A, Harisinghani M . PI-RADS: multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer. MAGMA. 2022; 35(4):523-532. DOI: 10.1007/s10334-022-01019-1. View

10.

Sekhoacha M, Riet K, Motloung P, Gumenku L, Adegoke A, Mashele S . Prostate Cancer Review: Genetics, Diagnosis, Treatment Options, and Alternative Approaches. Molecules. 2022; 27(17). PMC: 9457814. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27175730. View

11.

Luttrell L, Li J, Cohen R . Zonal origin of prostate cancer: comparison of long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2023; 55(8):1951-1956. PMC: 10329589. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-023-03637-7. View

12.

Greenberg J, Koller C, Casado C, Triche B, Krane L . A narrative review of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) implementation on screening, detection, and the overall accuracy for prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol. 2022; 14:17562872221096377. PMC: 9073105. DOI: 10.1177/17562872221096377. View

13.

Bagcilar O, Alis D, Seker M, Erdemli S, Karaarslan U, Kus A . A Comparative Study of Multiparametric MRI Sequences in Measuring Prostate Cancer Index Lesion Volume. J Belg Soc Radiol. 2022; 106(1):105. PMC: 9650977. DOI: 10.5334/jbsr.2832. View

14.

Ursprung S, Herrmann J, Nikolaou K, Harland N, Bedke J, Seith F . [Multiparametric MRI of the prostate: requirements and principles regarding diagnostic reporting]. Urologie. 2023; 62(5):449-458. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-023-02064-x. View

15.

Rodriguez Jr E, Skarecky D, Narula N, Ahlering T . Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size. J Urol. 2007; 179(2):501-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.083. View

16.

Hasebroock K, Serkova N . Toxicity of MRI and CT contrast agents. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2009; 5(4):403-16. DOI: 10.1517/17425250902873796. View

17.

Lo K, Chui K, Leung C, Ma S, Lim K, Ng T . Outcomes of transperineal and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Hong Kong Med J. 2019; 25(3):209-215. DOI: 10.12809/hkmj187599. View

18.

Lin S, Brown J . MR contrast agents: physical and pharmacologic basics. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007; 25(5):884-99. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20955. View

19.

Tanaka T, Yang M, Froemming A, Bryce A, Inai R, Kanazawa S . Current Imaging Techniques for and Imaging Spectrum of Prostate Cancer Recurrence and Metastasis: A Pictorial Review. Radiographics. 2020; 40(3):709-726. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2020190121. View

20.

Velasquez M, Prakash N, Venkatramani V, Nahar B, Punnen S . Imaging for the selection and monitoring of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2018; 7(2):228-235. PMC: 5911538. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.08.13. View