INTRODUCTION: Prostate Cancer (CaP) rarely produces symptoms at the beginning of disease progression since most tumors originate on the periphery of the gland. To improve early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer, the Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System, PI-RADS, was created. The system is beneficial in indicating probability and identifying where the biopsy will be directed if necessary, the increasing the chance that the sample will contain tissue with high suspicion of cancer. (4,5)JUSTIFICATION: Patients with suspected prostate cancer require an adequate strategy to diagnose the disease early. Multiparametric prostate MRI is a possible method of implementing as part of this screening in our population, and thus complementing the rest of the diagnostic tools. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An analytical, observational, transverse and retrospective study was conducted with patients at the Naval Hospital of High Specialty to whom t-tests were applied for independent samples and Mann-Whitney U-test for statistical analysis. Patients with suspected Prostate Cancer were selected who had psa levels, prostate MAGNETIC resonance imaging, and had histopathological reports of transrectal prostate biopsies. RESULTS: The sample for convenience was 59 patients, the average age of patients with adenocarcinoma was 65.0 years, without adenocarcinoma 64.4 years. The difference in mean values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference (P x 0.006), in this case we can say that the occurrence of adenocarcinoma is related to the PI-RADS 5 classification, since the value of "P" is less than 0.05, indicating a significant difference. The average pre-MRI PSA value of patients with adenocarcinoma was 8.9 ng/ml, with no adenocarcinoma 4.6 ng/ml, with a value of P x 0.928, there is no statistically significant difference.DISCUSSION: The PI-RADS prostate imaging data reporting and recording system is a tool developed for the timely diagnosis of prostate cancer, however, results in intermediate scores (predictive values) make the diagnosis difficult, so describing the association between these population scores that already has histologically confirmed diagnosis are helpful in clarifying this debate. CONCLUSION: Establishing the association between the PI-RADS scale report and the histopathological result of biopsy samples is of great importance, presents benefits for the diagnosis of this disease if supplemented by clinical examination, together it will help to make the appropriate diagnosis.
