Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology 2/2019

31.08.2018

Assessment of PI-RADS v2 categories ≥ 3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer

verfasst von: Nayana U. Patel, Kimberly E. Lind, Kavita Garg, David Crawford, Priya N. Werahera, Sajal S. Pokharel

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS v2 categories ≥ 3 to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) against histopathology of Transperineal Mapping Biopsy (TPMB).

Materials and methods

IRB-approved retrospective cohort study included 47 men who had 3.0 T multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and TPMB of prostate. Two radiologists independently evaluated T2, DWI, ADC map, and DCE images using PI-RADS v2 categories. A third radiologist served as tie-breaker. PI-RADS v2 score (PS) ≥ 3 lesions were correlated with 3D model of TPMB (3DTPMB) results based on prostate sectors. Two groups of csPCa status were separately analyzed for accuracy measures at lesion and person levels: Group 1 with GS (Gleason Score) ≥ 7 and group 2 with tumor volume ≥ 0.5 cc. Inter-rater reliability for PS and MR lexicon was calculated.

Results

Forty-seven patients with 3DTPMB had at least one lesion with PS ≥ 3 on mpMRI. PS of 5 had high PPV and high specificity of 100% at the lesion and person levels. Sensitivity of a PS ≥ 3 was 68.27% for group 1 and was 48.39% for group 2. Specificity was 93.56% for group 1 and was 95.53% for group 2. At the person level, sensitivity of PS ≥ 3 was 81.25% for group 1 and was 82.35% for group 2. Specificity was 32.26% for group 1 and was 53.85% for group 2.

Conclusion

PI-RADS v2 category of 5 had high PPV and specificity; however, combined PS ≥ 3 had mixed performance in detection of csPCa.
Literatur
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 69(1):16–40PubMedCrossRef Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 69(1):16–40PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Fulgham PF, Rukstalis DB, Turkbey IB, et al. (2017) AUA policy statement on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 198(4):832–838PubMedCrossRef Fulgham PF, Rukstalis DB, Turkbey IB, et al. (2017) AUA policy statement on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 198(4):832–838PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. (2016) Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur J Radiol. 85(6):1125–1131PubMedCrossRef Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. (2016) Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur J Radiol. 85(6):1125–1131PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al. (2016) The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol. 34(4):525–532PubMedCrossRef Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al. (2016) The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol. 34(4):525–532PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, et al. (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. 277(3):741–750PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, et al. (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. 277(3):741–750PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Purysko AS, Bittencourt LK, Bullen JA, et al. (2017) Accuracy and interobserver agreement for prostate imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2, for the characterization of lesions identified on multiparametric MRI of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 209(2):339–349PubMedCrossRef Purysko AS, Bittencourt LK, Bullen JA, et al. (2017) Accuracy and interobserver agreement for prostate imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2, for the characterization of lesions identified on multiparametric MRI of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 209(2):339–349PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Baldisserotto M, Neto EJD, Carvalhal G, et al. (2016) Validation of PI-RADS v. 2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil. J Magn Reson Imaging. 44(5):1354–1359PubMedCrossRef Baldisserotto M, Neto EJD, Carvalhal G, et al. (2016) Validation of PI-RADS v. 2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil. J Magn Reson Imaging. 44(5):1354–1359PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, et al. (2016) Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int. 118(1):35–43PubMedCrossRef Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, et al. (2016) Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int. 118(1):35–43PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, et al. (2017) Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int. 120(5):631–638PubMedCrossRef Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, et al. (2017) Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int. 120(5):631–638PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, et al. (2013) Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate. 73(7):778–787PubMedCrossRef Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, et al. (2013) Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate. 73(7):778–787PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Dimmen M, Vlatkovic L, Hole K-H, et al. (2012) Transperineal prostate biopsy detects significant cancer in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and previous negative transrectal biopsies. BJU Int. 110(2 Pt 2):E69–E75PubMedCrossRef Dimmen M, Vlatkovic L, Hole K-H, et al. (2012) Transperineal prostate biopsy detects significant cancer in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and previous negative transrectal biopsies. BJU Int. 110(2 Pt 2):E69–E75PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Barqawi AB, et al. (2011) The role of 3-dimensional mapping biopsy in decision making for treatment of apparent early stage prostate cancer. J Urol 186(1):80–85PubMedCrossRef Barqawi AB, et al. (2011) The role of 3-dimensional mapping biopsy in decision making for treatment of apparent early stage prostate cancer. J Urol 186(1):80–85PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Grey ADR, Chana MS, Popert R, et al. (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int. 115(5):728–735PubMedCrossRef Grey ADR, Chana MS, Popert R, et al. (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int. 115(5):728–735PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. (2013) Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation Cohort Study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 268(3):761–769PubMedCrossRef Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. (2013) Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation Cohort Study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 268(3):761–769PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang L, Tang M, Chen S, et al. (2017) A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 27:5204PubMedCrossRef Zhang L, Tang M, Chen S, et al. (2017) A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 27:5204PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Seo JW, Shin S-J, Taik OhY, et al. (2017) PI-RADS version 2: detection of clinically significant cancer in patients with biopsy gleason score 6 prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 209(1):W1–W9PubMedCrossRef Seo JW, Shin S-J, Taik OhY, et al. (2017) PI-RADS version 2: detection of clinically significant cancer in patients with biopsy gleason score 6 prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 209(1):W1–W9PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, et al. (2016) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26:1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6 PubMedCrossRef Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, et al. (2016) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26:1606. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00330-015-4015-6 PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al. (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: A Multicenter Study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. 280(3):793–804PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al. (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: A Multicenter Study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. 280(3):793–804PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Assessment of PI-RADS v2 categories ≥ 3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
verfasst von
Nayana U. Patel
Kimberly E. Lind
Kavita Garg
David Crawford
Priya N. Werahera
Sajal S. Pokharel
Publikationsdatum
31.08.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1751-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

Abdominal Radiology 2/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.