Andrew B Rosenkrantz1, Aytekin Oto2, Baris Turkbey3, Antonio C Westphalen4. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Center for Biomedical Imaging, New York University School of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, 660 First Ave, 3rd Fl, New York, NY 10016. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 3. 3 Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 4. 4 Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to highlight the potential challenges associated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADS v2), and to offer, when possible, suggestions and ideas for improvement. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 offers clear improvements to its earlier version and will greatly benefit the prostate MRI community. Nonetheless, caution remains on the basis of early user experience, and potential ambiguities and gaps of PI-RADS v2 are noted. Continued data-driven clarification and refinement of the guidelines will be invaluable for PI-RADS v2 to achieve its goal of improving patient care.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to highlight the potential challenges associated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADS v2), and to offer, when possible, suggestions and ideas for improvement. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 offers clear improvements to its earlier version and will greatly benefit the prostate MRI community. Nonetheless, caution remains on the basis of early user experience, and potential ambiguities and gaps of PI-RADS v2 are noted. Continued data-driven clarification and refinement of the guidelines will be invaluable for PI-RADS v2 to achieve its goal of improving patient care.
Entities:
Keywords:
MRI; PI-RADS; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System; guidelines; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Lauren Rosenblum; Matthew D Greer; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Clayton P Smith; Stephanie A Harmon; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Julie Y An; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Nathan Lay; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Eugenio Martorana; Giacomo Maria Pirola; Maria Cristina Aisa; Pietro Scialpi; Aldo Di Blasi; Giovanni Saredi; Alfredo D'Andrea; Stefano Signore; Riccardo Grisanti; Michele Scialpi Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2019-07-01
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elmira Hassanzadeh; Daniel I Glazer; Ruth M Dunne; Fiona M Fennessy; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Clare M Tempany Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-01