Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

PI‐RADS in Predicting csPCa: A Comparison Between Academic and Nonacademic Centers

PI‐RADS in Predicting csPCa: A Comparison Between Academic and Nonacademic Centers IntroductionProstate cancer (PCa) is the leading malignant tumor in men, with 288,300 new cases (29% of all cancers in men) and 34,700 deaths (11% of all cancer deaths) recorded in 2023 in the United States [1].The introduction of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in recent years has revolutionized the diagnosis of PCa. Today, mpMRI is considered the best radiological exam for localizing suspicious areas of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommend performing mpMRI before conducting a biopsy in patients suspected to have csPCa [2]. Interpreting prostate mpMRIs is complex and requires thorough and supervised training indeed, despite the availability of standardized protocols for reporting mpMRI results, there is considerable variability among radiologists with different levels of expertise [3–6]. Research has shown that less experienced radiologists are more likely to produce inconclusive or incorrect mpMRI reports, resulting in higher rates of false positives [7]. Over time, despite the recognized importance of mpMRI in PCa patients, significant multicenter disparities have been identified in the execution, interpretation, and reporting of prostate MRI examinations. This has underscored the need for greater standardization and accuracy in these procedures [8].This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Prostate Wiley

PI‐RADS in Predicting csPCa: A Comparison Between Academic and Nonacademic Centers

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/pi-rads-in-predicting-cspca-a-comparison-between-academic-and-xisoX8j8qT

References (30)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2025 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
ISSN
0270-4137
eISSN
1097-0045
DOI
10.1002/pros.24832
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

IntroductionProstate cancer (PCa) is the leading malignant tumor in men, with 288,300 new cases (29% of all cancers in men) and 34,700 deaths (11% of all cancer deaths) recorded in 2023 in the United States [1].The introduction of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in recent years has revolutionized the diagnosis of PCa. Today, mpMRI is considered the best radiological exam for localizing suspicious areas of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommend performing mpMRI before conducting a biopsy in patients suspected to have csPCa [2]. Interpreting prostate mpMRIs is complex and requires thorough and supervised training indeed, despite the availability of standardized protocols for reporting mpMRI results, there is considerable variability among radiologists with different levels of expertise [3–6]. Research has shown that less experienced radiologists are more likely to produce inconclusive or incorrect mpMRI reports, resulting in higher rates of false positives [7]. Over time, despite the recognized importance of mpMRI in PCa patients, significant multicenter disparities have been identified in the execution, interpretation, and reporting of prostate MRI examinations. This has underscored the need for greater standardization and accuracy in these procedures [8].This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic

Journal

The Prostate – Wiley

Published: Mar 1, 2025

Keywords: academic; clinically significant prostate cancer; csPCa; mpMRI; nonacademic; PIRADS

There are no references for this article.