nach oben

Abdominal Radiology

Erschienen in:

09.09.2020 | Practice

PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study

verfasst von: Zhibing Wang, Wenlu Zhao, Junkang Shen, Zhen Jiang, Shuo Yang, Shuangxiu Tan, Yueyue Zhang

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 12/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The studies comparing the versions 2 vs. 2.1 of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) are rare. This study aimed to evaluate whether PI-RADS version 2.1 is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer in comparison with PI-RADS version 2.

Methods

This was a diagnostic study of patients with prostate diseases who visited the Urology Department of The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University and underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination between 03-01-2016 and 10-31-2018. The images originally analyzed using PI-RADS version 2 were retrospectively re-analyzed and scored in 2019 according to the updated PI-RADS version 2.1. The kappa and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used.

Results

For Reader 1, compared with PI-RADS version 2, version 2.1 had higher sensitivity (85% vs. 79%, P = 0.03), lower specificity (65% vs. 83%, P < 0.001), and lower area under the curve (AUC) (0.749 vs. 0.809, P < 0.001). For Reader 2 (first attempt), compared with PI-RADS version 2, version 2.1 had lower specificity (67% vs. 91%, P < 0.001) and lower AUC (0.702 vs. 0.844, P < 0.001). For Reader 2 (second attempt), compared with PI-RADS version 2, version 2.1 had higher sensitivity (88% vs. 78%, P < 0.001) and lower specificity (77% vs. 91%, P < 0.001). The kappa between the two attempts for Reader 2 was 0.321.

Conclusion

These results suggest that PI-RADS version 2.1 might improve the detection of prostate cancers in the transition zone compared with PI-RADS version 2 but that it might results in higher numbers of biopsies because of lower specificity.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, D’Amico AV, Davis BJ, Dorff T et al. Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN. 2019;17(5):479-505. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023.

Graham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K, Hasler E, Prettyjohns M. Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. Bmj. 2014;348:f7524. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7524.CrossRefPubMed

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2020;70(1):7-30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590.

Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies. International journal of cancer. 2015;137(7):1749-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29538.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Augustin H, Erbersdobler A, Graefen M, Fernandez S, Palisaar J, Huland H et al. Biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy: a comparison between prostate cancers located in different anatomical zones. The Prostate. 2003;55(1):48-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.10216.CrossRefPubMed

McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. The American journal of surgical pathology. 1988;12(12):897-906. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-198812000-00001.

Elgamal AA, Van Poppel HP, Van de Voorde WM, Van Dorpe JA, Oyen RH, Baert LV. Impalpable invisible stage T1c prostate cancer: characteristics and clinical relevance in 100 radical prostatectomy specimens–a different view. The Journal of urology. 1997;157(1):244-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)65337-0.CrossRefPubMed

Noguchi M, Stamey TA, Neal JE, Yemoto CE. An analysis of 148 consecutive transition zone cancers: clinical and histological characteristics. The Journal of urology. 2000;163(6):1751-5.CrossRefPubMed

Sakai I, Harada K, Kurahashi T, Yamanaka K, Hara I, Miyake H. Analysis of differences in clinicopathological features between prostate cancers located in the transition and peripheral zones. International journal of urology: official journal of the Japanese Urological Association. 2006;13(4):368-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01307.x.CrossRef

10.

Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Blonski J, Graefen M, Palisaar J, Daghofer F et al. Zonal location of prostate cancer: significance for disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy? Urology. 2003;62(1):79-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00248-6.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Greene DR, Wheeler TM, Egawa S, Dunn JK, Scardino PT. A comparison of the morphological features of cancer arising in the transition zone and in the peripheral zone of the prostate. The Journal of urology. 1991;146(4):1069-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38003-5.CrossRefPubMed

12.

King CR, Ferrari M, Brooks JD. Prognostic significance of prostate cancer originating from the transition zone. Urologic oncology. 2009;27(6):592-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.05.009.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Engels RRM, Israël B, Padhani AR, Barentsz JO. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 1: Acquisition. European urology. 2020;77(4):457-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.021.

14.

Israël B, Leest MV, Sedelaar M, Padhani AR, Zámecnik P, Barentsz JO. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 2: Interpretation. European urology. 2020;77(4):469-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.024.

15.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. European radiology. 2012;22(4):746-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Richenberg JL. PI-RADS: past, present and future. Clinical radiology. 2016;71(1):23-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.10.019.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ. PI-RADS Version 2: A Pictorial Update. Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2016;36(5):1354-72. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150234.

18.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. European urology. 2016;69(1):16-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM. Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection. Radiology. 2017;283(1):119-29. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161124.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions. European urology. 2019;75(3):385-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.035.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Purysko AS, Bittencourt LK, Bullen JA, Mostardeiro TR, Herts BR, Klein EA. 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 American journal of roentgenology. 2017;209(2):339-49. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17289.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, Summers RM, Marko J, Law YM et al. Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2017;45(2):579-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25372.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Barrett T, Rajesh A, Rosenkrantz AB, Choyke PL, Turkbey B. PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI. Clinical radiology. 2019;74(11):841-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.05.019.

24.

Lo GC, Margolis DJA. Prostate MRI with PI-RADS v2.1: initial detection and active surveillance. Abdominal radiology. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02346-z.

25.

Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, Pinker-Domenig K, Georg D, Shariat SF et al. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. European journal of radiology. 2016;85(6):1125-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.03.025.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Wang X, Bao J, Ping X, Hu C, Hou J, Dong F et al. The diagnostic value of PI-RADS V1 and V2 using multiparametric MRI in transition zone prostate clinical cancer. Oncology letters. 2018;16(3):3201-6. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.9038.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Tewes S, Mokov N, Hartung D, Schick V, Peters I, Schedl P et al. Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2. PloS one. 2016;11(9):e0162879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162879.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Auer T, Edlinger M, Bektic J, Nagele U, Herrmann T, Schafer G et al. Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World journal of urology. 2017;35(5):687-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1920-5.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Krishna S, McInnes M, Lim C, Lim R, Hakim SW, Flood TA et al. Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System versions 1 and 2 for the Detection of Peripheral Zone Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Cancers. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2017;209(6):W365-W73. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.17964.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Ke Z, Wang L, Min XD, Feng ZY, Kang Z, Zhang PP et al. Diagnostic Performance and Interobserver Consistency of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2: A Study on Six Prostate Radiologists with Different Experiences from Half a Year to 17 Years. Chinese medical journal. 2018;131(14):1666-73. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.235872.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

De Visschere P, Pattyn E, Ost P, Claeys T, Lumen N, Villeirs G. Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and 2 in a Cohort of 245 Patients with Histopathological Reference and Long-Term Follow-Up. Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology. 2016;100(1):108. https://doi.org/10.5334/jbr-btr.1147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Tamada T, Kido A, Takeuchi M, Yamamoto A, Miyaji Y, Kanomata N et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer. European journal of radiology. 2019;121:108704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108704.

33.

Sheridan AD, Nath SK, Syed JS, Aneja S, Sprenkle PC, Weinreb JC et al. Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Associated With Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 (Equivocal) Lesions Identified on Multiparametric Prostate MRI. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2018;210(2):347-57. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18516.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Hassanzadeh E, Glazer DI, Dunne RM, Fennessy FM, Harisinghani MG, Tempany CM. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2): a pictorial review. Abdominal radiology. 2017;42(1):278-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0871-z.CrossRefPubMed

35.

American College of Radiology (ACR). PI-RADS. Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System. 2015. Version 2. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/PI-RADS/PIRADS-V2.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.

36.

Lu YF, Zhang Q, Chen HY, Chen JY, Pan Y, Xu CC et al. Improving the detection rate of prostate cancer in the gray zone of PI-RADS v2 and serum tPSA by using prostate-specific antigen-age volume. Medicine. 2019;98(26):e16289. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016289.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Chen N, Zhou Q. The evolving Gleason grading system. Chin J Cancer Res. 2016;28(1):58-64. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2016.02.04.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Al-Maghrabi JA, Bakshi NA, Farsi HM. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle core biopsies: a comparison of general and urologic pathologists. Ann Saudi Med. 2013;33(1):40-4. https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2013.40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Yang C, Kasales CJ, Ouyang T, Peterson CM, Sarwani NI, Tappouni R et al. A succinct rating scale for radiology report quality. SAGE open medicine. 2014;2:2050312114563101. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312114563101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Mucci B, Murray H, Downie A, Osborne K. Interrater variation in scoring radiological discrepancies. The British journal of radiology. 2013;86(1028):20130245. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130245.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. European urology. 2019;76(3):340-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.

42.

Chesnais AL, Niaf E, Bratan F, Mege-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M et al. Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. Clinical radiology. 2013;68(6):e323-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.01.018.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Toshimitsu S, Yamashita T, Yamamoto A et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2008;28(3):720-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21503.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, Tretiakova M, Yang C, Antic T et al. Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2010;257(3):715-23. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100021.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, George AK, Kongnyuy M, Muthigi A et al. Prospective Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Prostate Cancer Detection. The Journal of urology. 2016;196(3):690-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.04.057.CrossRefPubMed

46.

An JY, Fowler KJ. Editorial on “Head-to-Head Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer”. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27062.

47.

Byun J, Park KJ, Kim MH, Kim JK. Direct Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Experience. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27080.

48.

Wu YS, Wu XB, Zhang N, Jiang GL, Yu Y, Tong SJ et al. Evaluation of PSA-age volume score in predicting prostate cancer in Chinese population. Asian J Androl. 2018;20(4):324-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_81_17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, Khasgiwala A, Prabhu V, Smereka P et al. The Learning Curve in Prostate MRI Interpretation: Self-Directed Learning Versus Continual Reader Feedback. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2017;208(3):W92-W100. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16876.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Kasabwala K, Patel N, Cricco-Lizza E, Shimpi AA, Weng S, Buchmann RM et al. The Learning Curve for Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(2):135-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.07.005.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Truong M, Weinberg E, Hollenberg G, Borch M, Park JH, Gantz J et al. Institutional Learning Curve Associated with Implementation of a Magnetic Resonance/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Program Using PI-RADS Version 2: Factors that Influence Success. Urol Pract. 2018;5(1):69-75.CrossRef

Titel: PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study
verfasst von: Zhibing Wang
Wenlu Zhao
Junkang Shen
Zhen Jiang
Shuo Yang
Shuangxiu Tan
Yueyue Zhang
Publikationsdatum: 09.09.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 12/2020
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02724-y

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

18.04.2024 | Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Update Radiologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2020

Robotic-assisted transrectal MRI-guided biopsy. Technical feasibility and role in the current diagnosis of prostate cancer: an initial single-center experience

Imaging assessment of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

Imaging for prostate cancer: reimbursements

Health disparities and inequities in the utilization of diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer

MR safety considerations for patients undergoing prostate MRI

Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Update Radiologie