Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Der Radiologe 8/2017

18.07.2017 | Magnetresonanztomografie | CME

Prostatadiagnostik nach PI‑RADS 2.0

verfasst von: PD Dr. T. Franiel, PD Dr. M. Röthke

Erschienen in: Die Radiologie | Ausgabe 8/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Zusammenfassung

Die PI-RADS-2.0-Klassifikation wurde von einem Komitee der European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), des American College of Radiology (ACR) und der AdMeTech Foundation erarbeitet, um die Durchführung der multiparametrischen Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) der Prostata weiter zu standardisieren und die Interpretation der Bilder global zu vereinheitlichen. Die Klassifikation soll die Detektion, die Lokalisation, das Staging und die Risikobeurteilung von Patienten mit Verdacht auf ein Prostatakarzinom oder einem histologisch gesicherten Prostatakarzinom verbessern. Das Erscheinungsbild suspekter Areale in der T2-gewichteten (T2w-), der diffusionsgewichteten MRT (DWI) und der dynamischen kontrastmittelunterstützen MRT wird auf einer 5‑Punkte-Skala hinsichtlich der Wahrscheinlichkeit für ein Vorliegen eines signifikanten Prostatakarzinoms evaluiert. Die dominante Sequenz für die Beurteilung der peripheren Zone ist die DWI und für die Beurteilung der Transitionalzone die T2w-MRT. Für das lokale Staging des Prostatakarzinoms wurden Kriterien für die Beurteilung eines extrakapsulären Wachstums formuliert.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA et al (2015) Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(6):1112–1121CrossRefPubMed Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA et al (2015) Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(6):1112–1121CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat American of Radiology (2015) MR prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.0 American of Radiology (2015) MR prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.0
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40CrossRefPubMed Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Franiel T, Quentin M, Mueller-Lisse UG et al (2017) MRI of the prostate: recommendations on patient preparation and scanning protocol. Rofo 189(1):21–28PubMed Franiel T, Quentin M, Mueller-Lisse UG et al (2017) MRI of the prostate: recommendations on patient preparation and scanning protocol. Rofo 189(1):21–28PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al (2011) The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 60(2):291–303CrossRefPubMed Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al (2011) The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 60(2):291–303CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R et al (2016) Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 85(4):726–731CrossRefPubMed Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R et al (2016) Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 85(4):726–731CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA et al (2016) 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 26(6):1606–1612CrossRefPubMed Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA et al (2016) 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 26(6):1606–1612CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C et al (2014) Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 192(5):1374–1379CrossRefPubMed Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C et al (2014) Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 192(5):1374–1379CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Paakko E et al (2016) 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 69(3):419–425CrossRefPubMed Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Paakko E et al (2016) 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 69(3):419–425CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D et al (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 68(4):713–720CrossRefPubMed Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D et al (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 68(4):713–720CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T et al (2016) 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. doi:10.1111/bju.13711 Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T et al (2016) 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. doi:10.​1111/​bju.​13711
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Debats OA, Fortuin AS, Meijer HJ et al (2016) Intranodal signal suppression in pelvic MR lymphography of prostate cancer patients: a quantitative comparison of ferumoxtran-10 and ferumoxytol. PeerJ 4:e2471CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Debats OA, Fortuin AS, Meijer HJ et al (2016) Intranodal signal suppression in pelvic MR lymphography of prostate cancer patients: a quantitative comparison of ferumoxtran-10 and ferumoxytol. PeerJ 4:e2471CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Davis R, Salmasi A, Koprowski C et al (2016) Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer in community practice. Clin Genitourin Cancer 14(6):e617–e622CrossRefPubMed Davis R, Salmasi A, Koprowski C et al (2016) Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer in community practice. Clin Genitourin Cancer 14(6):e617–e622CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim W, Kim CK, Park JJ et al (2016) Evaluation of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer using qualitative and quantitative multiparametric MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(6):1760–1770. doi:10.1002/jmri.25515 CrossRefPubMed Kim W, Kim CK, Park JJ et al (2016) Evaluation of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer using qualitative and quantitative multiparametric MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(6):1760–1770. doi:10.​1002/​jmri.​25515 CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Roethke M, Kaufmann S, Kniess M et al (2014) Seminal vesicle invasion: accuracy and analysis of infiltration patterns with high-spatial resolution T2-weighted sequences on endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Urol Int 92(3):294–299CrossRefPubMed Roethke M, Kaufmann S, Kniess M et al (2014) Seminal vesicle invasion: accuracy and analysis of infiltration patterns with high-spatial resolution T2-weighted sequences on endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Urol Int 92(3):294–299CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Barentsz JO, Thoeny HC (2015) Prostate cancer: Can imaging accurately diagnose lymph node involvement? Nat Rev Urol 12(6):313–315CrossRefPubMed Barentsz JO, Thoeny HC (2015) Prostate cancer: Can imaging accurately diagnose lymph node involvement? Nat Rev Urol 12(6):313–315CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Thoeny HC, Froehlich JM, Triantafyllou M et al (2014) Metastases in normal-sized pelvic lymph nodes: detection with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 273(1):125–135CrossRefPubMed Thoeny HC, Froehlich JM, Triantafyllou M et al (2014) Metastases in normal-sized pelvic lymph nodes: detection with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 273(1):125–135CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Larbi A, Dallaudiere B, Pasoglou V et al (2016) Whole body MRI (WB-MRI) assessment of metastatic spread in prostate cancer: therapeutic perspectives on targeted management of oligometastatic disease. Prostate 76(11):1024–1033CrossRefPubMed Larbi A, Dallaudiere B, Pasoglou V et al (2016) Whole body MRI (WB-MRI) assessment of metastatic spread in prostate cancer: therapeutic perspectives on targeted management of oligometastatic disease. Prostate 76(11):1024–1033CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Tutolo M, Fossati N, Van der Aa F et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging for membranous urethral length assessment prior to radical prostatectomy: Can it really improve prostate cancer management? Eur Urol 71(3):379–380CrossRefPubMed Tutolo M, Fossati N, Van der Aa F et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging for membranous urethral length assessment prior to radical prostatectomy: Can it really improve prostate cancer management? Eur Urol 71(3):379–380CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Gibson E, Bauman GS, Romagnoli C et al (2016) Toward prostate cancer contouring guidelines on magnetic resonance imaging: dominant lesion gross and clinical target volume coverage via accurate histology fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96(1):188–196CrossRefPubMed Gibson E, Bauman GS, Romagnoli C et al (2016) Toward prostate cancer contouring guidelines on magnetic resonance imaging: dominant lesion gross and clinical target volume coverage via accurate histology fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96(1):188–196CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Prostatadiagnostik nach PI‑RADS 2.0
verfasst von
PD Dr. T. Franiel
PD Dr. M. Röthke
Publikationsdatum
18.07.2017
Verlag
Springer Medizin
Erschienen in
Die Radiologie / Ausgabe 8/2017
Print ISSN: 2731-7048
Elektronische ISSN: 2731-7056
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-017-0269-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2017

Der Radiologe 8/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Mitteilungen des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Radiologen

Mitteilungen des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Radiologen

Einführung zum Thema

Prostata