Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]2753163
• Reviews •
Current status and prospect of biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer
JI Jianzhi  ZHANG Qian  CAO Liang  NIU Meng  GUO Shunlin 

Cite this article as: Ji JZ, Zhang Q, Cao L, et al. Current status and prospect of biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 12(6): 118-120. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.06.025.


[Abstract] Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in elderly men. In recent years, MRI, as an important examination method, not only can diagnose prostate cancer early, but also play a very good role in the choice of treatment, curative effect and prognosis. The European Society for Urogenital Radiology recommends the use of complete multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, but there is much controversy about dynamic contrast enhancement. Recent studies have shown that there is no significant difference in the detection rate of prostate cancer between multiparametric MRI and biparametric MRI. Most literatures discuss the side effects or other dangers caused by contrast media, but there is little discussion about the advantages of dynamic enhancement. In this paper, the main sequences for the diagnosis of prostate cancer are reviewed, and the multiparametric MRI and biparametric MRI are compared. At the same time, the most controversial dynamic enhancement sequence is discussed and prospected.
[Keywords] prostate cancer；magnetic resonance imaging；multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging；biparametric magnetic resonance imaging；dynamic contrast enhancement

JI Jianzhi1, 2   ZHANG Qian1, 2   CAO Liang2   NIU Meng2   GUO Shunlin2*  

1 The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China

2 Department of Radiology, the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China

Guo SL, E-mail: guoshunlin@msn.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2021-02-05
Accepted  2021-03-05
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.06.025
Cite this article as: Ji JZ, Zhang Q, Cao L, et al. Current status and prospect of biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 12(6): 118-120. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.06.025.

1
Ye DW, Zhu Y. Epidemiological overview and enlightenment of prostate cancer in China[J]. Chin J Surgery, 2015, 53(4): 249-252. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2015.04.003.
2
Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS™ for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction[J]. J Urol, 2017, 198(3): 575-582. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.130.
3
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. European society of urogenital radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012[J]. Eur Radiol, 2012, 22(4): 746-757. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.
4
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[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(3): 340-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
5
Tamada T, Kido A, Takeuchi M, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2019, 121: 108704. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108704.
6
Yacoub JH, Oto A. MR Imaging of prostate zonal anatomy[J]. Radiol Clin North Am, 2018, 56(2): 197-209. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2017.10.003.
7
Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Validation of the dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS version 2[J]. Radiology, 2017, 285(3): 859-869. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017161316.
8
Scialpi M, D'Andrea A, Martorana E, et al. Biparametric MRI of the prostate[J]. Turk J Urol, 2017, 43(4): 401-409. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2017.06978.
9
Stanzione A, Ponsiglione A, Cuocolo R, et al. Abbreviated protocols versus multiparametric MRI for assessment of extraprostatic extension in prostatic carcinoma: A multireader study[J]. Anticancer Res, 2019, 39(8): 4449-4454. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13617.
10
Cybulski AJ, Catania M, Brancato S, et al. Added value of MRI tractography of peri-prostatic nerve plexus to conventional T2-WI in detection of extra-capsular extension of prostatic cancer[J]. Radiol Med, 2019, 124(10): 946-954. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-019-01047-3.
11
Kitzing YX, Prando A, Varol C, et al. Benign conditions that mimic prostate carcinoma: MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation[J]. Radiographics, 2016, 36(1): 162-175. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2016150030.
12
Chen YF, Liu JY. Research progress of DWI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer [J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 10(1): 72-76. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.01.014.
13
Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer[J]. BJU Int, 2009, 103(7): 883-888. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.
14
Shaish H, Kang SK, Rosenkrantz AB. The utility of quantitative ADC values for differentiating high-risk from low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2017, 42(1): 260-270. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0848-y.
15
Mucci LA, Powolny A, Giovannucci E, et al. Prospective study of prostate tumor angiogenesis and cancer-specific mortality in the health professionals follow-up study[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2009, 27(33): 5627- 5633. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.8876.
16
Brawer MK, Deering RE, Brown M, et al. Predictors of pathologic stage in prostatic carcinoma. The role of neovascularity[J]. Cancer, 1994, 73(3): 678-687. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940201)73:3<678:aid-cncr2820730329>3.0.co;2-6.
17
Singanamalli A, Rusu M, Sparks RE, et al. Identifying in vivo DCE MRI markers associated with microvessel architecture and gleason grades of prostate cancer[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2016, 43(1): 149-158. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24975.
18
Cristel G, Esposito A, Damascelli A, 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[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2019, 118: 51-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.002.
19
Ning P, Shi D, Sonn GA, et al. The impact of computed high b-value images on the diagnostic accuracy of DWI for prostate cancer: A receiver operating characteristics analysis[J]. Sci Rep, 2018, 8(1): 3409. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-21523-6.
20
Wang QZ, Chen YY, Zhang EL, et al. Research progress of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in predicting tumor prognosis [J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 10(7): 556-560. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.07.015.
21
Gupta RT, Kauffman CR, Garcia-Reyes K, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values of the benign central zone of the prostate: Comparison with low-and high-grade prostate cancer[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015, 205(2): 331-336. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.14221.
22
Ullrich T, Schimmöller L. Perspective: a critical assessment of PI-RADS 2.1[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2020, 45(12): 3961-3968. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02424-7.
23
Becerra MF, Alameddine M, Zucker I, et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI of the prostate in biopsy naïve men: A meta-analysis of prospective studies[J]. Urology, 2020, 146: 189-195. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.102.
24
Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-020-00298-w.
25
Brancato V, Di Costanzo G, Basso L, et al. Assessment of DCE utility for PCa diagnosis using PI-RADS v2.1: Effects on diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility[J]. Diagnostics (Basel), 2020, 10(3): 164. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10030164.
26
Schoots IG, Barentsz JO, Bittencourt LK, et al. PI-RADS committee position on MRI without contrast medium in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer: Narrative review[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2021, 216(1): 3-19. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.24268.Epub2020Nov19.PMID:32812795.
27
Becker AS, Kirchner J, Sartoretti T, et al. Interactive, up-to-date meta-analysis of MRI in the management of men with suspected prostate cancer[J]. J Digit Imaging, 2020, 33(3): 586-594. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-019-00312-1.
28
Porter KK, King A, Galgano SJ, et al. Financial implications of biparametric prostate MRI[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2020, 23(1): 88-93. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0158-x.
29
Zawaideh JP, Sala E, Shaida N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice[J]. Eur Radiol, 2020, 30(7): 4039- 4049. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06782-0.
30
Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance[J]. BJU Int, 2014, 113(6): 864-870. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12423.
31
de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists' training[J]. Eur Radiol, 2020, 30(10): 5404-5416. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z.
32
Gatti M, Faletti R, Calleris G, et al. Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI)[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2019, 44(5): 1883-1893. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3.
33
Bosaily AE, Frangou E, Ahmed HU, et al. Additional value of dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences in multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging: Data from the PROMIS study[J]. Eur Urol, 2020, 78(4): 503-511. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.002.
34
Panebianco V, Sciarra A, Lisi D, et al. Prostate cancer: 1HMRS-DCEMR at 3T versus [(18)F]choline PET/CT in the detection of local prostate cancer recurrence in men with biochemical progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) [J]. Eur J Radiol, 2012, 81(4): 700-708. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.095.

PREV Research progress of evaluating pancreatic fibrosis degree by multimodal magnetic resonance functional imaging
NEXT Current status and progression of MRI quantitative research in brown adipose tissue
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn