Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men [1]. Until a few years ago, digital rectal examination, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement, and prostate biopsy were the main tools in the diagnosis of PCa. Now, the role of multiparametric MR (mpMR) in the detection of PCa is widely accepted, but it is also recognized that prostate mpMR probably represents one of the most demanding challenges in radiology. The technique has relatively high variability in intra- and interobserver agreement [2], and its learning curve is not easy [3]. At the same time, a wide spectrum of technical MR parameters influence the mpMR evaluation. A major effort has been made to standardize the technical mpMR parameters and the mpMR reading model, as reflected in Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) [4]. PI-RADS v2 was developed by an international expert committee created by the American College of Radiology (ACR), the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), and the AdMeTech Foundation with the aim of updating and improving upon PI-RADS v1. Certainly, the extended use of PI-RADS v2 has facilitated the reading of mpMR and improved the diagnosis of PCa [5]. However, anatomic variants and benign pathologies frequently make radiological evaluation difficult in daily practice [6].
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Torre L, Bray F, Siegel R, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108.
Ghai S, Haider M. Multiparametric-MRI in diagnosis of prostate cancer. Indian J Urol. 2015;31(3):194.
Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int. 2015;117(1):80–6.
Weinreb J, Barentsz J, Choyke P, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.
Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(4):726–31.
Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Barentsz J, et al. Pitfalls in interpreting mp-MRI of the prostate: a pictorial review with pathologic correlation. Insights Imaging. 2015;6(6):611–30.
Hricak H, Dooms G, McNeal J, et al. MR imaging of the prostate gland: normal anatomy. AJR. 1987;148(1):51–8.
Bouyé S, Potiron E, Puech P, et al. Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate. 2009;69(1):105–13.
McNeal J. The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate. 1981;2(1):35–49.
Quick C, Gokden N, Sangoi A, et al. The distribution of PAX-2 immunoreactivity in the prostate gland, seminal vesicle, and ejaculatory duct: comparison with prostatic adenocarcinoma and discussion of prostatic zonal embryogenesis. Hum Pathol. 2010;41(8):1145–9.
Vargas H, 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(3):894–902.
Hansford B, Karademir I, Peng Y, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging features of the normal central zone of the prostate. Acad Radiol. 2014;21(5):569–77.
Semple J. Surgical capsule of the benign enlargement of the prostate. BMJ. 1963;1(5346):1640–3.
Allen K, Kressel H, Arger P, et al. Age-related changes of the prostate: evaluation by MR imaging. AJR. 1989;152(1):77–81.
Watanabe Y, Nagayama M, Araki T, et al. Targeted biopsy based on ADC map in the detection and localization of prostate cancer: a feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;37(5):1168–77.
Ramakrishnan K, Salinas R. Prostatitis: acute and chronic. Prim Care. 2010;37(3):547–63.
Hambrock T, Fütterer J, Huisman H, et al. Thirty-two-channel coil 3T magnetic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility. Investig Radiol. 2008;43(10):686–94.
Meier-Schroers M, Kukuk G, Wolter K, et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer using the prostate imaging—Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(7):1304–11.
Bour L, Schull A, Delongchamps N, et al. Multiparametric MRI features of granulomatous prostatitis and tubercular prostate abscess. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94(1):84–90.
Mohan H, Bal A, Punia R, et al. Granulomatous prostatitis - an infrequent diagnosis. Int J Urol. 2005;12(5):474–8.
Prando A, Billis A. Focal prostatic atrophy: mimicry of prostatic cancer on TRUS and 3D-MRSI studies. Abdom Imaging. 2008;34(2):271–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Catalá, V., Hernández, J., Algaba, F., Laucirica, O., Vilanova, J.C. (2018). Multiparametric MRI and Prostate Cancer: Pitfalls and Tricks. In: Vilanova, J., Catalá, V., Algaba, F., Laucirica, O. (eds) Atlas of Multiparametric Prostate MRI . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61786-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61786-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61785-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61786-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)