Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology 12/2018

11.05.2018

Evaluating the size criterion for PI-RADSv2 category 5 upgrade: is 15 mm the best threshold?

verfasst von: Julie Y. An, Stephanie A. Harmon, Sherif Mehralivand, Marcin Czarniecki, Clayton P. Smith, Julie A. Peretti, Bradford J. Wood, Peter A. Pinto, Peter L. Choyke, Joanna H. Shih, Baris Turkbey

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 12/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to determine if the ≥ 15 mm threshold currently used to define PIRADS 5 lesions is the optimal size threshold for predicting high likelihood of clinically significant (CS) cancers.

Materials

Three hundred and fifty-eight lesions that may be changed from category 4 to 5 or vice versa on the basis of the size criterion (category 4: n = 288, category 5: n = 70) from 255 patients were evaluated. Kendall’s tau-b statistic accounting for inter-lesion correlation, generalized estimation equation logistic regression, and receiver operating curve analysis evaluated two lesion size-metrics (lesion diameter and relative lesion diameter—defined as lesion diameter/prostate volume) for ability to identify CS (Gleason grade ≥ 3 + 4) cancer at targeted biopsy. Optimal cut-points were identified using the Youden index. Analyses were performed for the whole prostate (WP) and zone-specific sub-cohorts of lesions in the peripheral and transition zones (PZ and TZ).

Results

Lesion diameter showed a modest correlation with Gleason grade (WP: τB = 0.21, p < 0.0001; PZ: τB = 0.13, p = 0.02; TZ: τB = 0.32, p = 0.001), and association with CS cancer detection (WP: AUC = 0.63, PZ: AUC = 0.59, TZ: AUC = 0.74). Empirically derived thresholds (WP: 14 mm, PZ: 13 mm, TZ: 16 mm) performed similarly to the current ≥ 15 mm standard. Lesion relative lesion diameter improved identification of CS cancers compared to lesion diameter alone (WP: τB = 0.30, PZ: τB = 0.24, TZ: τB = 0.42, all p < 0.0001). AUC also improved for WP and PZ lesions (WP: AUC = 0.70, PZ: AUC = 0.68, and TZ: AUC = 0.74).

Conclusions

The current ≥ 15 mm diameter threshold is a reasonable delineator of PI-RADS category 4 and category 5 lesions in the absence of extraprostatic extension to predict CS cancers. Additionally, relative lesion diameter can improve identification of CS cancers and may serve as another option for distinguishing category 4 and 5 lesions.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih JH, et al. (2017) Prospective evaluation of prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2 using the international society of urological pathology prostate cancer grade group system. J Urol 198(3):583–590CrossRef Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih JH, et al. (2017) Prospective evaluation of prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2 using the international society of urological pathology prostate cancer grade group system. J Urol 198(3):583–590CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Engelhard K, Labanaris AP, Bogner K, et al. (2014) How good is post-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting and characterising the index lesion of localised prostate cancer? Scand J Urol. 48(6):499–505CrossRef Engelhard K, Labanaris AP, Bogner K, et al. (2014) How good is post-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting and characterising the index lesion of localised prostate cancer? Scand J Urol. 48(6):499–505CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. (2016) Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol. 69(3):512–517CrossRef Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. (2016) Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol. 69(3):512–517CrossRef
4.
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):16–40CrossRef Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 69(1):16–40CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Turkbey B, Choyke PL (2015) PIRADS 2.0: what is new? Diagn Interv Radiol. 21(5):382CrossRef Turkbey B, Choyke PL (2015) PIRADS 2.0: what is new? Diagn Interv Radiol. 21(5):382CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Eichelberger LE, Koch MO, Eble JN, et al. (2005) Maximum tumor diameter is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 18(7):886–890CrossRef Eichelberger LE, Koch MO, Eble JN, et al. (2005) Maximum tumor diameter is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 18(7):886–890CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Kok DE, Kiemeney LA, Hulsbergen-vandeKaa CA (2008) Maximum tumor diameter is not an independent prognostic factor in high-risk localized prostate cancer. World J Urol. 26(3):237–241CrossRef van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Kok DE, Kiemeney LA, Hulsbergen-vandeKaa CA (2008) Maximum tumor diameter is not an independent prognostic factor in high-risk localized prostate cancer. World J Urol. 26(3):237–241CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol. 69(1):41–49CrossRef Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol. 69(1):41–49CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Turkbey B, Fotin SV, Huang RJ, et al. (2013) Fully automated prostate segmentation on MRI: comparison with manual segmentation methods and specimen volumes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 201(5):W720–W729CrossRef Turkbey B, Fotin SV, Huang RJ, et al. (2013) Fully automated prostate segmentation on MRI: comparison with manual segmentation methods and specimen volumes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 201(5):W720–W729CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosner B, Glynn RJ, Lee ML (2006) Extension of the rank sum test for clustered data: two-group comparisons with group membership defined at the subunit level. Biometrics. 62(4):1251–1259CrossRef Rosner B, Glynn RJ, Lee ML (2006) Extension of the rank sum test for clustered data: two-group comparisons with group membership defined at the subunit level. Biometrics. 62(4):1251–1259CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Shih JH, Fay MP (2017) Pearson’s Chi square test and rank correlation inferences for clustered data. Biometrics 73(3):822–834CrossRef Shih JH, Fay MP (2017) Pearson’s Chi square test and rank correlation inferences for clustered data. Biometrics 73(3):822–834CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Renshaw AA, Richie JP, Loughlin KR, et al. (1998) The greatest dimension of prostate carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive predictor of prostate specific antigen failure in radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 83(4):748–752CrossRef Renshaw AA, Richie JP, Loughlin KR, et al. (1998) The greatest dimension of prostate carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive predictor of prostate specific antigen failure in radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 83(4):748–752CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM (1999) Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA. 281(15):1395–1400CrossRef Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM (1999) Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA. 281(15):1395–1400CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Nelson BA, Shappell SB, Chang SS, et al. (2006) Tumour volume is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 97(6):1169–1172CrossRef Nelson BA, Shappell SB, Chang SS, et al. (2006) Tumour volume is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 97(6):1169–1172CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Bostwick DG, Graham SD Jr, Napalkov P, et al. (1993) Staging of early prostate cancer: a proposed tumor volume-based prognostic index. Urology. 41(5):403–411CrossRef Bostwick DG, Graham SD Jr, Napalkov P, et al. (1993) Staging of early prostate cancer: a proposed tumor volume-based prognostic index. Urology. 41(5):403–411CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y, et al. (2004) Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology. 64(1):101–105CrossRef Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y, et al. (2004) Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology. 64(1):101–105CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. (2012) Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol. 188(4):1157–1163CrossRef Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. (2012) Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol. 188(4):1157–1163CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, et al. (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol. 70(5):846–853CrossRef Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, et al. (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol. 70(5):846–853CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM (2016) Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 283(1):119–129CrossRef Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM (2016) Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 283(1):119–129CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Newton MR, Phillips S, Chang SS, et al. (2010) Smaller prostate size predicts high grade prostate cancer at final pathology. J Urol. 184(3):930–937CrossRef Newton MR, Phillips S, Chang SS, et al. (2010) Smaller prostate size predicts high grade prostate cancer at final pathology. J Urol. 184(3):930–937CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Caliskan S, Kaba SL, Koca O, Ozturk MI (2017) Does small prostate predict high grade prostate cancer? J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 27(2):97–100PubMed Caliskan S, Kaba SL, Koca O, Ozturk MI (2017) Does small prostate predict high grade prostate cancer? J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 27(2):97–100PubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Yashi M, Mizuno T, Yuki H, et al. (2014) Prostate volume and biopsy tumor length are significant predictors for classical and redefined insignificant cancer on prostatectomy specimens in Japanese men with favorable pathologic features on biopsy. BMC Urol. 14:43CrossRef Yashi M, Mizuno T, Yuki H, et al. (2014) Prostate volume and biopsy tumor length are significant predictors for classical and redefined insignificant cancer on prostatectomy specimens in Japanese men with favorable pathologic features on biopsy. BMC Urol. 14:43CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Khalil S, Ibilibor C, Cammack JT, de Riese W (2016) Association of prostate volume with incidence and aggressiveness of prostate cancer. Res Rep Urol. 8:201–205PubMedPubMedCentral Al-Khalil S, Ibilibor C, Cammack JT, de Riese W (2016) Association of prostate volume with incidence and aggressiveness of prostate cancer. Res Rep Urol. 8:201–205PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
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):793–804CrossRef 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):793–804CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Muthigi A, George AK, Sidana A, et al. (2017) Missing the mark: prostate cancer upgrading by systematic biopsy over magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol. 197(2):327–334CrossRef Muthigi A, George AK, Sidana A, et al. (2017) Missing the mark: prostate cancer upgrading by systematic biopsy over magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol. 197(2):327–334CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 313(4):390–397CrossRef Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 313(4):390–397CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Evaluating the size criterion for PI-RADSv2 category 5 upgrade: is 15 mm the best threshold?
verfasst von
Julie Y. An
Stephanie A. Harmon
Sherif Mehralivand
Marcin Czarniecki
Clayton P. Smith
Julie A. Peretti
Bradford J. Wood
Peter A. Pinto
Peter L. Choyke
Joanna H. Shih
Baris Turkbey
Publikationsdatum
11.05.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 12/2018
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1631-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2018

Abdominal Radiology 12/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

Comet-tail artifact in adenomyomatosis

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

Cobblestone sign

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

Hellmer’s sign

Update Radiologie

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