Clinical-imaging metrics for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in PI-RADS 3 lesions

被引:0
|
作者
Kang, Zhen [1 ,6 ]
Margolis, Daniel J. [2 ]
Tian, Ye [3 ]
Li, Qiubai [4 ]
Wang, Shaogang [5 ]
Wang, Liang [6 ]
机构
[1] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Tongji Hosp, Tongji Med Coll, Dept Radiol, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[2] New York Presbyterian, Weill Cornell Med, Dept Radiol, New York, NY USA
[3] Capital Med Univ, Affiliated Beijing Friendship Hosp, Dept Urol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[4] Univ Hosp Cleveland Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Cleveland, OH USA
[5] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Tongji Hosp, Tongji Med Coll, Dept Urol, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[6] Capital Med Univ, Beijing Friendship Hosp, Dept Radiol, Beijing, Peoples R China
关键词
Prostate cancer; Clinically significant prostate cancer; PI-RADS; 3; Coefficient of variation; Apparent diffusion coefficient; APPARENT DIFFUSION-COEFFICIENT; DENSITY; GRADE; MRI;
D O I
10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.06.014
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: To explore the feasibility and efficacy of clinical-imaging metrics in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) category 3 lesions. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on lesions diagnosed as PI-RADS 3. They were categorized into benign, non-csPCa and csPCa groups. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), T2-weighted imaging signal intensity (T2WISI), coefficient of variation of ADC and T2WISI, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD), ADC density (ADCD), prostate-specific antigen lesion volume density (PSAVD) and ADC lesion volume density (ADCVD) were measured and calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors associated with PCa and csPCa. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and decision curves were utilized to assess the efficacy and net benefit of independent risk factors. Results: Among 202 patients, 133 had benign prostate disease, 25 non-csPCa and 44 csPCa. Age, PSA and lesion location showed no significant differences (P> 0.05) among the groups. T2WISI and coefficient of variation of ADC (ADCcv) were independent risk factors for PCa in PI-RADS 3 lesions, yielding an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68. ADC was an independent risk factor for csPCa in PI-RADS 3 lesions, yielding an AUC of 0.65. Decision curve analysis showed net benefit for patients at certain probability thresholds. Conclusions: T2WISI and ADCcv, along with ADC, respectively showed considerable promise in enhancing the diagnosis of PCa and csPCa in PI-RADS 3lesions.
引用
收藏
页码:371e1 / 371e10
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Efficacy of plasma atherogenic index in predicting malignancy in the presence of Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System 3 (PI-RADS 3) prostate lesions
    Samet Senel
    Kazim Ceviz
    Yusuf Kasap
    Sedat Tastemur
    Erkan Olcucuoglu
    Emre Uzun
    Muhammed Emin Polat
    Antonios Koudonas
    Firathan Sarialtin
    International Urology and Nephrology, 2023, 55 : 255 - 261
  • [42] Outcomes of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy of PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 Lesions
    Gosein, Maria
    Pang, Emily
    Chang, Silvia
    Black, Peter
    Goldenberg, Larry
    Harris, Alison
    Yasenjiang, Jason
    Yousefi, Masoud
    CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RADIOLOGISTS JOURNAL-JOURNAL DE L ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES RADIOLOGISTES, 2018, 69 (03): : 303 - 310
  • [43] Clinical Significance of the PI-RADS Score in Men with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy
    Nwanze, Julum
    Teramoto, Yuki
    Wang, Ying
    Miyamoto, Hiroshi
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2023, 103 (03) : S781 - S782
  • [44] Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)
    Meier-Schroers, Michael
    Kukuk, Guido
    Wolter, Karsten
    Decker, Georges
    Fischer, Stefan
    Marx, Christian
    Traeber, Frank
    Sprinkart, Alois Martin
    Block, Wolfgang
    Schild, Hans Heinz
    Willinek, Winfried
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (07) : 1304 - 1311
  • [45] Magnetic resonance imaging radiomics-based prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer in equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions in the transitional zone
    Zhao, Ying-Ying
    Xiong, Mei-Lian
    Liu, Yue-Feng
    Duan, Li-Juan
    Chen, Jia-Li
    Xing, Zhen
    Lin, Yan-Shun
    Chen, Tan-Hui
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
  • [46] Predictive ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting prostate cancer and its clinical significance in MRI-targeted biopsy for prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) ≥3 lesions
    Erkan, A.
    Ozcan, S. G. Gur
    Erkan, M.
    Barali, D.
    Koc, A.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2025, 80
  • [47] Classification of Cancer at Prostate MRI: Deep Learning versus Clinical PI-RADS Assessment
    Schelb, Patrick
    Kohl, Simon
    Radtke, Jan Philipp
    Wiesenfarth, Manuel
    Kickingereder, Philipp
    Bickelhaupt, Sebastian
    Kuder, Tristan Anselm
    Stenzinger, Albrecht
    Hohenfellner, Markus
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    Maier-Hein, Klaus H.
    Bonekamp, David
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 293 (03) : 607 - 617
  • [48] Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomics-Based Machine Learning Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal PI-RADS 3 Lesions
    Hectors, Stefanie J.
    Chen, Christine
    Chen, Johnson
    Wang, Jade
    Gordon, Sharon
    Yu, Miko
    Al Hussein Al Awamlh, Bashir
    Sabuncu, Mert R.
    Margolis, Daniel J. A.
    Hu, Jim C.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2021, 54 (05) : 1466 - 1473
  • [49] PI-RADS 3 MRI lesions: Are biopsies still necessary?
    Depaquit, Thibaut Long
    Uleri, Alessandro
    Peyrottes, Arthur
    Corral, Renaud
    Toledano, Harry
    Chiron, Paul
    Bastide, Cyrille
    Baboudjian, Michael
    FRENCH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2025, 35 (03):
  • [50] Assessment of PI-RADS v2 categories3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Patel, Nayana U.
    Lind, Kimberly E.
    Garg, Kavita
    Crawford, David
    Werahera, Priya N.
    Pokharel, Sajal S.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2019, 44 (02) : 705 - 712