T Ullrich1,2, L Schimmöller3. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Tim.Ullrich@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. Tim.Ullrich@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this article we take a critical look at the key changes of the newest edition of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 (v2.1) and indicate future directions for further development of the system. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2.1 addresses some of the shortcomings of its widely embraced precursor version 2, largely to simplify interpretation and improve interobserver agreement without changing the fundamental acquisition and scoring guidelines. Biparametric MRI is acknowledged in the newest version, but multiparametric MRI including dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging is still recommended for most scenarios. Management recommendations and guidance on evaluation of follow-up MRI's are still not included in the system.
PURPOSE: In this article we take a critical look at the key changes of the newest edition of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 (v2.1) and indicate future directions for further development of the system. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2.1 addresses some of the shortcomings of its widely embraced precursor version 2, largely to simplify interpretation and improve interobserver agreement without changing the fundamental acquisition and scoring guidelines. Biparametric MRI is acknowledged in the newest version, but multiparametric MRI including dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging is still recommended for most scenarios. Management recommendations and guidance on evaluation of follow-up MRI's are still not included in the system.
Keywords:
Guidelines; MRI; PI-RADS; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Prostate imaging reporting and data system
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tim Ullrich; Michael Quentin; Christian Arsov; Anna Katharina Schmaltz; Alexander Tschischka; Nina Laqua; Andreas Hiester; Dirk Blondin; Robert Rabenalt; Peter Albers; Gerald Antoch; Lars Schimmöller Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Vito Cucchiara; Matthew R Cooperberg; Marc Dall'Era; Daniel W Lin; Francesco Montorsi; Jack A Schalken; Christopher P Evans Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Benjamin Spilseth; Sangeet Ghai; Nayana U Patel; Samir S Taneja; Daniel J Margolis; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Barış Türkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Jeffrey W Nix; Srinivas Vourganti; Kinzya B Grant; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Valentina Brancato; Marco Aiello; Luca Basso; Serena Monti; Luigi Palumbo; Giuseppe Di Costanzo; Marco Salvatore; Alfonso Ragozzino; Carlo Cavaliere Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 4.379