Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2021; 42(01): 080-088
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730757
Trainees’ Corner

Pitfalls in Prostate Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Kuldeep Yadav
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
,
Binit Sureka
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
,
Poonam Elhence
2   Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
,
Gautam Ram Choudhary
3   Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
,
Himanshu Pandey
3   Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Image-guided prostate biopsies are changing the outlook of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, with the degree of suspicion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) being a strong predictor of targeted biopsy outcome. It is important not only to detect these suspicious lesions but also to be aware of the potential pitfalls in mp-MRI prostate imaging. The aim of this pictorial essay is to show a wide spectrum of representative cases, which are frequently misdiagnosed as PIRADS ⅘ while reporting mp-MRI of the prostate. We provide some valuable recommendations to avoid these fallacies and improve mp-MRI of prostate evaluation.

Keywords

Cancer - magnetic resonance imaging - pitfall - prostate


Publication History

Article published online:
28 May 2021

© 2021. Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Stabile A, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018; 21 (04) 473-487
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC. et al. PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389 (10071) 815-822
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA. et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system Version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system Version 2. Eur Urol 2019; 76 (03) 340-351
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Costa DN, Kay FU, Pedrosa I. et al. An initial negative round of targeted biopsies in men with highly suspicious multiparametric magnetic resonance findings does not exclude clinically significant prostate cancer-Preliminary experience. Urol Oncol 2017; 35 (04) 149.e15-149.e21
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Alqahtani S, Wei C, Zhang Y. et al. Prediction of prostate cancer Gleason score upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy using pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI PIRADS scoring system. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (01) 7722
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 McNeal JE. The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate 1981; 2 (01) 35-49
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Allen KS, Kressel HY, Arger PH, Pollack HM. Age-related changes of the prostate: evaluation by MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989; 152 (01) 77-81
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Labra WA, Zúñiga GÁ. Pitfalls in multiparametric prostate MRI. Rev Chil Radiol 2019; 25: 128-140
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS. Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202 (01) 109-120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Semple JE. Surgical capsule of the benign enlargement of the prostate. Its development and action. BMJ 1963; 1 (5346) 1640-1643
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Kitzing YX, Prando A, Varol C, Karczmar GS, Maclean F, Oto A. Benign conditions that mimic prostate carcinoma: MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics 2016; 36 (01) 162-175
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Sureka B, Yadav K, Garg PK, Khera PS. Moustache sign. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44 (04) 1629-1630
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Sureka B, Yadav K, Choudhary GR, Garg PK, Khera PS. Teardrop sign. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44 (06) 2325-2326
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Panebianco V, Giganti F, Kitzing YX. et al. An update of pitfalls in prostate mpMRI: a practical approach through the lens of PI-RADS v. 2 guidelines. Insights Imaging 2018; 9 (01) 87-101
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Ramakrishnan K, Salinas RC. Prostatitis: acute and chronic. Prim Care 2010; 37 (03) 547-563, viii–ix
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Yuen B, Cho C, Hung E. Pitfalls of prostate imaging reporting and data system Version 2: A pictorial essay. Hong Kong J Radiol 2018; 21: 280-291
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Gürses B, Tasdelen N, Yencilek F. et al. Diagnostic utility of DTI in prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2011; 79 (02) 172-176
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Sureka B, Elhence P, Khera PS. et al. Quantitative contrast-enhanced perfusion kinetics in multiparametric MRI in differentiating prostate cancer from chronic prostatitis: results from a pilot study. Br J Radiol 2019; 92 (11/00) 20190181
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y. et al. Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology 2008; 248 (02) 531-539
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Gaur S, Turkbey B. Prostate MR imaging for posttreatment evaluation and recurrence. Radiol Clin North Am 2018; 56 (02) 263-275
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Grant K, Lindenberg ML, Shebel H. et al. Functional and molecular imaging of localized and recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013; 40 (Suppl. 01) S48-S59
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Klimas R, Bennett B, Gardner WA Jr. Prostatic calculi: a review. Prostate 1985; 7 (01) 91-96
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Kothari PS, Scardino PT, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM. Incidence, location, and significance of periprostatic and periseminal vesicle lymph nodes in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2001; 25 (11) 1429-1432
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar