» Articles » PMID: 39858056

The Whole-Body MRI Reporting and Data System Guidelines for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P), Multiple Myeloma (MY-RADS), and Cancer Screening (ONCO-RADS)

Overview
Journal Cancers (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Date 2025 Jan 25
PMID 39858056
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) is being employed with increasing frequency to evaluate a broader spectrum of patients with diverse types of cancer and for cancer screening purposes. While clinical guidelines support its use, a standardized radiological approach is still lacking. To improve consistency in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of WB-MRI examinations, three reporting and data systems (RADSs) have been recently suggested: METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P), Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS), and Oncologically Relevant Findings Reporting and Data System (ONCO-RADS). MET-RADS-P was developed to stage and monitor men with advanced prostate cancer using WB-MRI. It has emerged as a reliable imaging biomarker for predicting metastatic disease progression and assessing treatment response. MY-RADS was developed to stage and monitor patients with multiple myeloma using WB-MRI, emerging as a prognostic imaging biomarker. However, the evidence regarding inter-reader agreement for MY-RADS is currently limited. ONCO-RADS was developed to standardize the use of WB-MRI for cancer screening in individuals with cancer predisposition syndromes and in the general population. While initial findings are promising, the evidence supporting its use remains limited. To further validate and expand upon these promising preliminary findings, additional large-scale, prospective, multicenter studies are necessary.

References
1.
Petralia G, Koh D, Attariwala R, Busch J, Eeles R, Karow D . Oncologically Relevant Findings Reporting and Data System (ONCO-RADS): Guidelines for the Acquisition, Interpretation, and Reporting of Whole-Body MRI for Cancer Screening. Radiology. 2021; 299(3):494-507. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021201740. View

2.
Giles S, deSouza N, Collins D, Morgan V, West S, Davies F . Assessing myeloma bone disease with whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging: comparison with x-ray skeletal survey by region and relationship with laboratory estimates of disease burden. Clin Radiol. 2015; 70(6):614-21. PMC: 4443503. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.02.013. View

3.
Yoshida S, Takahara T, Ishii C, Arita Y, Waseda Y, Kijima T . METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer as a Prognostic Imaging Marker in Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020; 18(4):e391-e396. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.12.010. View

4.
Hillengass J, Bauerle T, Bartl R, Andrulis M, McClanahan F, Laun F . Diffusion-weighted imaging for non-invasive and quantitative monitoring of bone marrow infiltration in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease: a comparative study with histology. Br J Haematol. 2011; 153(6):721-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08658.x. View

5.
Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, Heidenreich A, Ost P, Procopio G . Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020; 31(9):1119-1134. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011. View