INTRODUCTION
Prostate cancer(PCa) is the most commonly observed cancer in men in the
world and the 3rd most common cause of cancer-related
deaths1. An autopsy study of 1056 men, who died from
causes other than prostate cancer, found 68-77% of men aged 60-79 years
had not received a diagnosis but had asymptomatic PCa identified. This
result shows the prevalence of this silent disease2,3.
However, the mortality and morbidity of advanced stage PCa are very
high. Recent studies have focused on distinguishing lesions expressed as
“silent disease” with almost no fatality potential, such as tumors
with a Gleason score(GS) of 6, and high-grade
cancers4. Due to limited sensitivity and specificity
of serum PSA screening, digital prostate examination, and TRUS-bx,
advanced imaging methods are required to reduce biopsy numbers and to
perform target-specific biopsies5. With advanced
imaging methods, diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer can be
chosen specifically to the person or active surveillance may be
performed. To ensure standardization and reduce differences emerging in
the selection of parameters and interpretation of images on prostate
MRI, the ESUR published a guideline in 20125,6. Rapid
developments in this field and limitations encountered during the use of
the PI-RADSv1 led to an update of the PI-RADS system and PI-RADSv2 was
published in 2015 by a committee7. In 2019,
PI-RADSv2.1 was published including changes ensuring more accurate and
reproducible interpretations can be made8,9.
The aim of this prospective study is; to investigate the correlation of
the PIRADSv2.1 score with the histopathological result and the ISUP
score in patients with suspected prostate cancer in MpMRI examinations
guided PI-RADSv2.1 and diagnosed with TRUS-guided cognitive fusion
biopsy(TRUS-guided CF-Bx) and to assess the compatibility between
different experience levels of the radiologists.