Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology 2024; 07(03): 169-182
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787295
Special Issue Articles
Review Article

PI-RADS 2.1: A Practical Overview

A Dayala Sundaram
1   Department of Radiology, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is an essential tool for standardizing the interpretation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) of the prostate for detecting prostate cancer. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the latest version, PI-RADS 2.1, with clear pictures to guide radiologists in its practical application for improved diagnostic accuracy. The article explores the key modifications, emphasizing the changes in scoring criteria and their impact on clinical decision-making. It discusses the importance of mp-MRI sequences, such as T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, and clarifies their significance in the PI-RADS 2.1 framework. The article highlights practical insights to help radiologists integrate this updated system into their day-to-day practice, promoting consistency and reliability in reporting.

Keywords

overview - PI-RADS 2.1 - practical


Publication History

Article published online:
19 June 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 World Cancer Research Fund International/American Institute for Cancer Research Continuous Update Project Report. Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Prostate Cancer. 2014 . Accessed May 16, 2024 at: www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/Prostate-Cancer-2014-Report.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fitzmaurice C. et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 7-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C, Ward EM. Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19 (08) 1893-1907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ. et al; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (13) 1320-1328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J. et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 65 (06) 1046-1055
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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 (03) 340-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Arif M, Schoots IG, Castillo Tovar J. et al. Clinically significant prostate cancer detection and segmentation in low-risk patients using a convolutional neural network on multi-parametric MRI. Eur Radiol 2020; 30 (12) 6582-6592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate imaging reporting and data system steering committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. Eur Urol 2019; 75 (03) 385-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R. et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European association of urology prostate cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72 (02) 250-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017; 72 (02) 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Slough RA, Caglic I, Hansen NL, Patterson AJ, Barrett T. Effect of hyoscine butylbromide on prostate multiparametric MRI anatomical and functional image quality. Clin Radiol 2018; 73 (02) 216.e9-216.e14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kabakus IM, Borofsky S, Mertan FV. et al. Does abstinence from ejaculation before prostate MRI improve evaluation of the seminal vesicles?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207 (06) 1205-1209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Barrett T, Tanner J, Gill AB, Slough RA, Wason J, Gallagher FA. The longitudinal effect of ejaculation on seminal vesicle fluid volume and whole-prostate ADC as measured on prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 2017; 27 (12) 5236-5243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shin T, Kaji Y, Shukuya T, Nozaki M, Soh S, Okada H. Significant changes of T2 value in the peripheral zone and seminal vesicles after ejaculation. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (03) 1009-1015
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Selman SH. The McNeal prostate: a review. Urology 2011; 78 (06) 1224-1228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bura V, Caglic I, Snoj Z. et al. MRI features of the normal prostatic peripheral zone: the relationship between age and signal heterogeneity on T2WI, DWI, and DCE sequences. Eur Radiol 2021; 31 (07) 4908-4917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R. et al; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22 (04) 746-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kayhan A, Fan X, Oommen J, Oto A. Multi-parametric MR imaging of transition zone prostate cancer: imaging features, detection and staging. World J Radiol 2010; 2 (05) 180-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T. et al. Normal central zone of the prostate and central zone involvement by prostate cancer: clinical and MR imaging implications. Radiology 2012; 262 (03) 894-902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS. Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202 (01) 109-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hansford BG, Karademir I, Peng Y. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging features of the normal central zone of the prostate. Acad Radiol 2014; 21 (05) 569-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Panebianco V, Giganti F, Kitzing YX. et al. An update of pitfalls in prostate mpMRI: a practical approach through the lens of PI-RADS v. 2 guidelines. Insights Imaging 2018; 9 (01) 87-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cohen RJ, Shannon BA, Phillips M, Moorin RE, Wheeler TM, Garrett KL. Central zone carcinoma of the prostate gland: a distinct tumor type with poor prognostic features. J Urol 2008; 179 (05) 1762-1767 , discussion 1767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kitzing YX, Prando A, Varol C, Karczmar GS, Maclean F, Oto A. Benign conditions that mimic prostate carcinoma: MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics 2016; 36 (01) 162-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gatti M, Faletti R, Gentile F. et al. mEPE-score: a comprehensive grading system for predicting pathologic extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2022; 32 (07) 4942-4953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Roethke M, Kaufmann S, Kniess M. et al. Seminal vesicle invasion: accuracy and analysis of infiltration patterns with high-spatial resolution T2-weighted sequences on endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Urol Int 2014; 92 (03) 294-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Masterson TA, Pettus JA, Middleton RG, Stephenson RA. Isolated seminal vesicle invasion imparts better outcomes after radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: prognostic stratification of pt3b disease by nodal and margin status. Urology 2005; 66 (01) 152-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002; 167 (2 Pt 1): 528-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ramsden AR, Chodak G. An analysis of risk factors for biochemical progression in patients with seminal vesicle invasion: validation of Kattan's nomogram in a pathological subgroup. BJU Int 2004; 93 (07) 961-964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL, Seale-Hawkins C, Link J, Wheeler TM. The mechanisms and prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1993; 17 (12) 1252-1261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Osborn JR, Ramsden AR, Chodak GW, Persad RA. Should the therapeutic approach to prostate cancer with seminal vesicle invasion be reviewed: improving functional results without diminishing oncological outcome?. BJU Int 2004; 94 (04) 482-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Chen HN, Scardino PT, Kuroiwa K. Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology 2006; 238 (02) 597-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Djavan B, Zlotta A, Kratzik C. et al. PSA, PSA density, PSA density of transition zone, free/total PSA ratio, and PSA velocity for early detection of prostate cancer in men with serum PSA 2.5 to 4.0 ng/mL. Urology 1999; 54 (03) 517-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nordström T, Akre O, Aly M, Grönberg H, Eklund M. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018; 21 (01) 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar