Valeria Panebianco1, Yoshifumi Narumi2, Ersan Altun3, Bernard H Bochner4, Jason A Efstathiou5, Shaista Hafeez6, Robert Huddart6, Steve Kennish7, Seth Lerner8, Rodolfo Montironi9, Valdair F Muglia10, Georg Salomon11, Stephen Thomas12, Hebert Alberto Vargas13, J Alfred Witjes14, Mitsuru Takeuchi15, Jelle Barentsz16, James W F Catto17. 1. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. Electronic address: valeria.panebianco@uniroma1.it. 2. Department of Radiology, Osaka Medical College, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK. 7. Department of Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield, UK. 8. Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 9. Section of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy. 10. Imaging Division, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil. 11. Martini Clinic, University Clinic Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 12. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 13. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 14. Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 15. Department of Radiology, Radiolonet Tokai, Nagoya, Japan. 16. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 17. Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Management of bladder cancer (BC) is primarily driven by stage, grade, and biological potential. Knowledge of each is derived using clinical, histopathological, and radiological investigations. This multimodal approach reduces the risk of error from one particular test, but may present a staging dilemma when results conflict. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may improve patient care through imaging of the bladder with better resolution of the tissue planes than computed tomography and without radiation exposure. OBJECTIVE: To define a standardized approach to imaging and reporting mpMRI for BC, by developing a VI-RADS score. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We created VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System) through consensus using existing literature. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We describe standard imaging protocols and reporting criteria (including size, location, multiplicity, and morphology) for bladder mpMRI. We propose a five-point VI-RADS score, derived using T2-weighted MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast enhancement, which suggests the risks of muscle invasion. We include sample images used to understand VI-RADS. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that VI-RADS will standardize reporting, facilitate comparisons between patients, and in future years, will be tested and refined if necessary. While we do not advocate mpMRI for all patients with BC, this imaging may compliment pathology or reduce radiation-based imaging. Bladder mpMRI may be most useful in patients with non-muscle-invasive cancers, in expediting radical treatment or for determining response to bladder-sparing approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for bladder cancer are becoming more common and may provide accurate information that helps improve patient care. Here, we describe a standardized reporting criterion for bladder MRI. This should improve communication between doctors and allow better comparisons between patients.
CONTEXT: Management of bladder cancer (BC) is primarily driven by stage, grade, and biological potential. Knowledge of each is derived using clinical, histopathological, and radiological investigations. This multimodal approach reduces the risk of error from one particular test, but may present a staging dilemma when results conflict. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may improve patient care through imaging of the bladder with better resolution of the tissue planes than computed tomography and without radiation exposure. OBJECTIVE: To define a standardized approach to imaging and reporting mpMRI for BC, by developing a VI-RADS score. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We created VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System) through consensus using existing literature. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We describe standard imaging protocols and reporting criteria (including size, location, multiplicity, and morphology) for bladder mpMRI. We propose a five-point VI-RADS score, derived using T2-weighted MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast enhancement, which suggests the risks of muscle invasion. We include sample images used to understand VI-RADS. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that VI-RADS will standardize reporting, facilitate comparisons between patients, and in future years, will be tested and refined if necessary. While we do not advocate mpMRI for all patients with BC, this imaging may compliment pathology or reduce radiation-based imaging. Bladder mpMRI may be most useful in patients with non-muscle-invasive cancers, in expediting radical treatment or for determining response to bladder-sparing approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for bladder cancer are becoming more common and may provide accurate information that helps improve patient care. Here, we describe a standardized reporting criterion for bladder MRI. This should improve communication between doctors and allow better comparisons between patients.
Authors: J P Stein; G Lieskovsky; R Cote; S Groshen; A C Feng; S Boyd; E Skinner; B Bochner; D Thangathurai; M Mikhail; D Raghavan; D G Skinner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maurizio Brausi; Laurence Collette; Karlheinz Kurth; Adrian P van der Meijden; Wim Oosterlinck; J A Witjes; Donald Newling; Christian Bouffioux; Richard J Sylvester Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: T A Splinter; H I Scher; L Denis; R Bukowski; S Simon; I Klimberg; M Soloway; N J Vogelzang; H van Tinteren; H Herr Journal: J Urol Date: 1992-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Catherine M Tangen; V O Speights; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ralph W deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; David P Wood; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Cora N Sternberg; Vito Pansadoro; Fabio Calabrò; Sylvia Schnetzer; Diana Giannarelli; Paolo Emiliozzi; Francesco De Paula; Paolo Scarpone; Piero De Carli; Maurizio Pizzo; Andrea Platania; Mostafà Amini Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Giovanni Barchetti; Giuseppe Simone; Isabella Ceravolo; Vincenzo Salvo; Riccardo Campa; Francesco Del Giudice; Ettore De Berardinis; Dorelsa Buccilli; Carlo Catalano; Michele Gallucci; James W F Catto; Valeria Panebianco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: V Hechler; M Rink; D Beyersdorff; M Beer; A J Beer; V Panebianco; M Pecoraro; C Bolenz; G Salomon Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Sungmin Woo; Valeria Panebianco; Yoshifumi Narumi; Francesco Del Giudice; Valdair F Muglia; Mitsuru Takeuchi; Soleen Ghafoor; Bernard H Bochner; Alvin C Goh; Hedvig Hricak; James W F Catto; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-03-19