4.6 Review

Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2: how we review and report

期刊

CANCER IMAGING
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40644-016-0068-2

关键词

Prostate cancer; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI); Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS (TM) v2)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prostate imaging and interpretation is based on prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS (TM) v2) providing clinical guidelines for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. PI-RADS (TM) v2 aims to promote global standardisation, to diminish variation in the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of prostate mpMRI examinations and to improve detection, localisation, and risk stratification in patients with suspected cancer in treatment naive prostate glands. It does not address detection of recurrence, progression during active surveillance and evaluation of other parts of the body. PI-RADS (TM) v2 improves and standardises communication between radiologists and urologists to detect or exclude the presence of significant prostate cancer with a high likelihood. Findings on mpMRI are assessed on a 5-point category scale based on the probability that a combination of findings on T2-weighted (T2w) sequences, diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) correlates with the presence of a clinically significant prostate cancer at a particular location. PI-RADS assessment categories range from 1 to 5 with 5 being most likely to represent clinically significant prostate cancer. The dominant sequence to detect prostate cancer in the peripheral zone is DWI, whereas for tumour detection in the transition zone T2w is the most important sequence. DCE-MRI has been attributed a minor role and only qualitative assessment with presence or absence of focal enhancement is suggested. Up to four suspicious lesions of category 3, 4 and 5 are assigned on a sector map and the index lesion should be identified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据