Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arguments against using an abbreviated or biparametric prostate MRI protocol

  • Special Section: Prostate cancer update
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Currently there is a lot of interest in the use of a “biparametric” or “abbreviated” prostate MR protocol, which usually refers to removal of the dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. In this article we describe the benefits of DCE as part of the PI-RADS lexicon, with particular reference to its role in PI-RADS V2 category 3 peripheral zone lesions. We also discuss the benefits of triplanar T2-weighted images, and finally discuss how a mpMRI protocol is of benefit in prostate cancer staging, in evaluating for local disease recurrence, and as a biomarker for neoadjuvant therapy response.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1801993

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389: 815–822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F, 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. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30569-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric 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. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S. Abbreviated Biparametric Prostate MR Imaging in Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen. Radiology. 2017;285: 493–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Leest M, Israël B, Cornel EB, Zámecnik P, Schoots IG, et al. High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naïve Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility. European Urology. 2019. pp. 574–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.05.029

  7. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging–reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69: 16–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, Moskowitz CS, Gondo T, Matsumoto K, et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol. 2016;26: 1606–1612.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Seo JW, Shin S-J, Taik Oh Y, Jung DC, Cho NH, Choi YD, et al. PI-RADS Version 2: Detection of Clinically Significant Cancer in Patients With Biopsy Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209: W1–W9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sanguedolce F, Petralia G, Sokhi H, Tagliabue E, Anyamene N, Hellawell G, et al. Baseline Multiparametric MRI for Selection of Prostate Cancer Patients Suitable for Active Surveillance: Which Features Matter? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16: 155–163.e6.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P, Allen C, Bangma C, Briganti A, et al. 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. 2017;71: 648–655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Cossu M, Bollito E, Veltri A, et al. Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naive patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;72: 282–288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E, Piippo U, Kauppila S, Lammentausta E, et al. Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial. Eur Urol. 2016;69: 419–425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Ciardi A, Indino EL, Papalia R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol. 2015;33: 17.e1–17.e7.

  15. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. European Urology. 2019. pp. 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033

  16. Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, Rosenkrantz AB, Margolis DJ, Turkbey B, et al. PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway. Radiology. 2019. pp. 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182946

  17. Niu X-K, Chen X-H, Chen Z-F, Chen L, Li J, Peng T. Diagnostic Performance of Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211: 369–378.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B, 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, Summers RM, Marko J, Law YM, et al. Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;45: 579–585.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cuocolo R, Stanzione A, Ponsiglione A, Verde F, Ventimiglia A, Romeo V, et al. Prostate MRI technical parameters standardization: A systematic review on adherence to PI-RADSv2 acquisition protocol. European Journal of Radiology. 2019. p. 108662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108662

  21. Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, Barrett T, Kayat Bittencourt L, Borofsky S, et al. Validation of the Dominant Sequence Paradigm and Role of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Imaging in PI-RADS Version 2. Radiology. 2017;285: 859–869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Taghipour M, Ziaei A, Alessandrino F, Hassanzadeh E, Harisinghani M, Vangel M, et al. Investigating the role of DCE-MRI, over T2 and DWI, in accurate PI-RADS v2 assessment of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate lesions as defined at radical prostatectomy. Abdominal Radiology. 2019. pp. 1520–1527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1807-6

  23. Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM. Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection. Radiology. 2017;283: 119–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Druskin SC, Ward R, Purysko AS, Young A, Tosoian JJ, Ghabili K, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI improves classification of prostate lesions: a study of pathologic outcomes on targeted prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2017;198: 1301–1308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cristel G, Esposito A, Damascelli A, Briganti A, Ambrosi A, Brembilla G, et al. Can DCE-MRI reduce the number of PI-RADS v.2 false positive findings? Role of quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters in prostate lesions characterization. Eur J Radiol. 2019;118: 51–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Becker AS, Cornelius A, Reiner CS, Stocker D, Ulbrich EJ, Barth BK, et al. Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 1 regarding interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. European Journal of Radiology. 2017. pp. 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.016

  27. Sertdemir M, Schoenberg SO, Sourbron S, Hausmann D, Heinzelbecker J, Michaely HJ, et al. Interscanner comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer: 1.5 versus 3 T MRI. Invest Radiol. 2013;48: 92–97.

  28. Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C, Pepdjonovic L, Bonekamp D, O’Sullivan R, et al. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122: 40–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, Briggs T, Barratt D, Charman SC, et al. The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer. 2017;116: 1159–1165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey FJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016;122: 884–892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, Koo B, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int. 2017;120: 631–638.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7: 70–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Junker D, Steinkohl F, Fritz V, Bektic J, Tokas T, Aigner F, et al. Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric MRI of the prostate: are gadolinium-based contrast agents needed for routine examinations? World J Urol. 2019;37: 691–699.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Visschere PD, De Visschere P, Lumen N, Ost P, Decaestecker K, Pattyn E, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging has limited added value over T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging when using PI-RADSv2 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA. Clinical Radiology. 2017. pp. 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.09.011

  35. Luzzago S, Catellani M, Mistretta FA, Conti A, Serino A, Bianco R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance of the prostate second opinion may reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies: A single center experience. European Urology Supplements. 2018. p. e894. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1569-9056(18)31457-x

  36. Ullrich T, Quentin M, Arsov C, Schmaltz AK, Tschischka A, Laqua N, et al. Risk Stratification of Equivocal Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate. J Urol. 2018;199: 691–698.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Scialpi M, Martorana E, Aisa MC, Rondoni V, D’Andrea A, Brunese L. Abbreviated Biparametric Prostate MR Imaging: Is It Really an Alternative to Multiparametric MR Imaging? Radiology. 2018. pp. 360–361.

  38. Swindle P. eastham Ja, ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler t, Maru N, Slawin k and Scardino PT: Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2008;179: S47–S51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kvåle R, Myklebust TÅ, Fosså SD, Aas K, Ekanger C, Helle SI, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on secondary treatment, palliative radiotherapy and prostate cancer‐specific mortality. A population‐based study of 13 198 patients. Prostate. 2019;79: 1852–1860.

  40. Boesen L, Chabanova E, Løgager V, Balslev I, Mikines K, Thomsen HS. Prostate cancer staging with extracapsular extension risk scoring using multiparametric MRI: a correlation with histopathology. Eur Radiol. 2015;25: 1776–1785.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cerantola Y, Valerio M, Kawkabani Marchini A, Meuwly J-Y, Jichlinski P. Can 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging accurately detect prostate cancer extracapsular extension? Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7: E699–703.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Brembilla G, Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A, Ambrosi A, Cristel G, Brunetti L, et al. Preoperative multiparametric MRI of the prostate for the prediction of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. European Radiology. 2018. pp. 1969–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5229-6

  43. Park SY, Oh YT, Jung DC, Cho NH, Choi YD, Rha KH. Prediction of Micrometastasis (< 1 cm) to Pelvic Lymph Nodes in Prostate Cancer: Role of Preoperative MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205: W328–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Woo S, Kim SY, Kim SH, Cho JY. JOURNAL CLUB: Identification of Bone Metastasis With Routine Prostate MRI: A Study of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2016. pp. 1156–1163. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.15.15761

  45. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Musio D, Forte V, Gentile V, et al. Prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: the role of 3-T diffusion imaging in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23: 1745–1752.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Linder BJ, Kawashima A, Woodrum DA, Tollefson MK, Karnes J, Davis BJ, et al. Early localization of recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy by endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging. Can J Urol. 2014;21: 7283–7289.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Potretzke TA, Froemming AT, Gupta RT. Post-treatment prostate MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02348-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wu LM, Xu J-R, Gu HY, Hua J, Zhu J, Chen J, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of local prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy. Clin Oncol . 2013;25: 252–264.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Roy C, Foudi F, Charton J, Jung M, Lang H, Saussine C, et al. Comparative sensitivities of functional MRI sequences in detection of local recurrence of prostate carcinoma after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200: W361–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fennessy FM, McKay RR, Beard CJ, Taplin M-E, Tempany CM. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: Potential Roles and Possible Pitfalls. Transl Oncol. 2014;7: 120–129.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Fennessy FM, Fedorov A, Vangel MG, Mulkern RV, Tretiakova M, Lis RT, et al. Multiparametric MRI as a Biomarker of Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer-A Pilot Study. Acad Radiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.10.017

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Barrett T, Gill AB, Kataoka MY, Priest AN, Joubert I, McLean MA, et al. DCE and DW MRI in monitoring response to androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a feasibility study. Magn Reson Med. 2012;67: 778–785.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hötker AM, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, Berkowitz J, Lantos JE, et al. Prostate Cancer: assessing the effects of androgen-deprivation therapy using quantitative diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol. 2015;25: 2665–2672.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Padhani a. R, MacVicar a. D, Gapinski CJ, Dearnaley DP, Parker GJ, Suckling J, et al. Effects of androgen deprivation on prostatic morphology and vascular permeability evaluated with mr imaging. Radiology. 2001;218: 365–374.

  55. Muller BG, van den Bos W, Brausi M, Fütterer JJ, Ghai S, Pinto PA, et al. Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: results from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol. 2015;33: 1503–1509.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, Barret E, Berge V, Bott S, et al. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes–a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2015;67: 771–777.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. McCann SM, Jiang Y, Fan X, Wang J, Antic T, Prior F, et al. Quantitative Multiparametric MRI Features and PTEN Expression of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer: A Pilot Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206: 559–565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Jamaspishvili T, Berman DM, Ross AE, Scher HI, De Marzo AM, Squire JA, et al. Clinical implications of PTEN loss in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;15: 222–234.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Stoyanova R, Pollack A, Takhar M, Lynne C, Parra N, Lam LLC, et al. Association of multiparametric MRI quantitative imaging features with prostate cancer gene expression in MRI-targeted prostate biopsies. Oncotarget. 2016;7: 53362–53376.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Felipe B. Franco & Fiona M. Fennessy

  2. Department of Imaging, Harvard Medical School, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Fiona M. Fennessy

Authors
  1. Felipe B. Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fiona M. Fennessy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona M. Fennessy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Franco, F.B., Fennessy, F.M. Arguments against using an abbreviated or biparametric prostate MRI protocol. Abdom Radiol 45, 3982–3989 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02474-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02474-x

Search

Navigation