Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiparametric MRI of Prostate Cancer: Recent Advances

  • Geriatrics (G Gugliemi, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To bring the radiologists up to date on the state of the art of the magnetic resonance imaging in detection of prostate cancer and on the findings to consider for reports.

Recent Findings

Recently, the members of American College of Radiologist updated the new guidelines (Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System) with new recommendations on the acquisition and reporting of MRI for staging and restaging of prostate cancer, giving a particular importance to the latest advanced MRI techniques (diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging).

Summary

Magnetic resonance imaging plays a fundamental role in prostate cancer staging and restaging; moreover, it allows the detection of some findings with prognostic value. This review includes the last American College of Radiologist updated Recommendations on magnetic resonance imaging protocol, interpretation, and reporting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

• Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, et al. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1164–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1310–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kheirandish P, Chinegwundoh F. Ethnic differences in prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(4):481–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.273.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hemminki K. Familial risk and familial survival in prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2012;30(2):143–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0801-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bancroft EK, Page EC, Castro E, et al. Targeted prostate cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2mutation carriers: results from the initial screening round of the IMPACT study. Eur Urol. 2014;66:489–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Leitzmann MF, Rohrmann S. Risk factors for the onset of prostatic cancer: age, location, and behavioural correlates. Clin Epidemiol. 2012;4:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haider A, Zitzmann M, Doros G, Isbarn H, Hammerer P, Yassin A. Incidence of prostate cancer in hypogonadal men receiving testosterone therapy: observations from 5-year median followup of 3 registries. J Urol. 2015;193:80–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;618–29

  10. •• Manfredi M, Mele F, Garrou D, et al. Multiparametric prostate MRI: technical conduct, standardized report and clinical Min. Urol Nefrol. 2018;70(1):9–21. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02846-6. Very important because it refers to the last recommendation of PI-RADS, very useful in the daily clinical practice and for standardized reports.

  11. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):323–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):343–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rouviere 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;20:100–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multipara-metric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate- specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. 2019;75:570–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Perez-Lopez R, Tunariu N, Padhani AR, et al. Imaging diagnosis and follow-up of advanced prostate cancer: clinical perspectives and state of the art. Radiology. 2019;292(2):273–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. •• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate and imaging—reporting data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40. Very important because it refers to the last recommendation of PI-RADS, very useful in the daily clinical practice and for standardized reports

  17. 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;76:340–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. • Engels RRM, Istrael B, Padhani AR, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: what urologists needs to know. Part 1: acquisition. Eur Urol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.021. Exhaustive correlation between clinical, therapeutic and radiological aspects.

  19. Ullrich T, Quentin M, Oelers C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: a prospective comparison study of image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2017;90:192–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mirak SA, Shakeri S, Bajgiran AM, et al. Three Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of performance with and without endorectal coil for prostate cancer detection, PI-RADS version 2 category and staging with whole mount histopathology correlation. J Urol. 2019;201:496–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fusco R, Sansone M, Granata V, Setola SV, Petrillo A. A systematic review on multiparametric MR imaging in prostate cancer detection. Infect Agent Cancer. 2017;12:57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tan CH, Hobbs BP, Wei W, Kundra V. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:439–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bittencourt LK, Hausmann D, Sabaneeff N, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: current concepts. Radiol Bras. 2014;47(5):292–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruprecht O, Weisser P, Bodelle B, Ackermann H, Vogl TJ. MRI of the prostate: interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prost tectomy. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:456–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2006;176:2432–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1125–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. 2016;280:793–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mehralivand S, Sidana A, Maruf M, et al. Current role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Curr Radiol Rep. 2017;5(11):57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):569–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1728–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. De Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic metaanalysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70:233–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Thoeny HC, Froehlich JM, Triantafyllou M, et al. Metastases in normal-sized pelvic lymph nodes: detection with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 2014;273:125–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013;119:3359–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Giganti F, Pecoraro M, Stravrinides V, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(4):2082–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rosenkrantz AB, Mussi TC, Hindman N, et al. Impact of delay after biopsy and post-biopsy haemorrhage on prostate cancer tumor detection using multi-parametric MRI: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol. 2012;67:e83–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Schimmöller L, Blondin D, Arsov C, et al. MRI-guided in-bore biopsy: differences between prostate cancer detection and localization in primary and secondary biopsy settings. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:92–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance–ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):809–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, “Dimiccoli” Hospital, Barletta, Italy

    Elena Ventrella & Giuseppe Guglielmi

  2. Radiologia Ospedale “Carlo Urbani”, Jesi, Italy

    Laura Eusebi & Francesco Bartelli

  3. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Foggia University School of Medicine, Viale L. Pinto 1, 71121, Foggia, Italy

    Francesca Anna Carpagnano & Giuseppe Guglielmi

  4. Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Foggia University School Medicine, Foggia, Italy

    Luigi Cormio

  5. Department of Urology, Bonomo Teaching Hospital, Andria, BT, Italy

    Luigi Cormio

  6. Department of Radiology, Hospital “Casa Sollievo Della Sofferenza”, San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy

    Giuseppe Guglielmi

Authors
  1. Elena Ventrella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Eusebi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesca Anna Carpagnano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesco Bartelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luigi Cormio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giuseppe Guglielmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe Guglielmi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Geriatrics.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ventrella, E., Eusebi, L., Carpagnano, F.A. et al. Multiparametric MRI of Prostate Cancer: Recent Advances. Curr Radiol Rep 8, 19 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-020-00363-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-020-00363-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation