Comparisons of three scoring systems based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer

被引:0
|
作者
Li, Wei [1 ]
Xu, Haibing [1 ]
Shang, Wenwen [1 ]
Hong, Guohui [1 ]
机构
[1] Jiangsu Vocat Coll Med, Dept Med Imaging, Yancheng, Peoples R China
关键词
bpMRI; Diagnosis; Prostate cancer; PI-RADS; Scoring; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; MRI;
D O I
10.1016/j.prnil.2024.08.002
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: In this study, we aimed to validate and compare three scoring systems based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy-na & iuml;ve patients. Method: In this study, we included patients who underwent MRI examinations between January 2018 and December 2022, with MRI-targeted fusion biopsy (MRGB) as the reference standard. The MRI findings were categorized using three bpMRI-based scorings, in all of them the diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was the dominant sequence for peripheral zone (PZ) and T2-weighed imaging (T2WI) was the dominant sequence for transition zone (TZ). We also used the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version (PI-RADS) v2.1 to evaluate each lesion. For each scoring, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC). Results: The calculated AUC for three bpMRI-based scorings were 83.2% (95% CI 78.8%-87.6%), 85.0% (95% CI 80.8%-89.3%), 82.9% (95% CI 78.4%-87.5%), and 86.0% (95% CI 81.8%-90.1%), respectively. Scoring 2 exhibited significantly superior performance than scoring 1 (P = 0.01) and scoring 3 (P < 0.001). Moreover, the accuracy of scoring 2 was not decreased significantly as compared to PI-RADS v2.1 (P = 0.05). There was no significant difference between 3 bpMRI-based scorings and with PI-RADS in TZ. However, although scoring 2 yielded the highest AUC, it was still notably inferior to PI-RADS (P = 0.02). Conclusion: All three bpMRI-based scorings demonstrated favorite diagnostic accuracy, and scoring 2 performed significantly better than the other two bpMRI-based scorings. Notably, scoring 2 was not significantly inferior to the full-sequence PI-RADS v2.1 in terms of sensitivity and specificity.
引用
收藏
页码:201 / 206
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of clinically significant prostate cancer using biparametric magnetic resonance imaging: An evolving concept
    Mahajan, Manik
    Gupta, Vikrant
    Gupta, Puneet
    Sharma, Poonam
    Abrol, Deepak
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2022, 18 (06) : 1640 - 1645
  • [2] A nomogram based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients
    Hu, Beibei
    Zhang, Huili
    Zhang, Yueyue
    Jin, Yongming
    CANCER IMAGING, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [3] Impact of biparametric prebiopsy prostate magnetic resonance imaging on the diagnostics of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy naive men
    Knaapila, Juha
    Autio, Venla
    Jambor, Ivan
    Ettala, Otto
    Verho, Janne
    Kiyiniemi, Aida
    Taimen, Pekka
    Perez, Ileana Montoya
    Aronen, Hannu J.
    Syvanen, Kari T.
    Bostrom, Peter J.
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 54 (01) : 7 - 13
  • [4] Biparametric versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: detection of clinically significant cancer in a perfect match group
    Cho, Jungheum
    Ahn, Hyungwoo
    Hwang, Sung Il
    Lee, Hak Jong
    Choe, Gheeyoung
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    PROSTATE INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 8 (04) : 146 - 151
  • [5] A nomogram based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve patients
    Beibei Hu
    Huili Zhang
    Yueyue Zhang
    Yongming Jin
    Cancer Imaging, 23
  • [6] Nomograms for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with PI-RADS-3 biparametric magnetic resonance imaging
    Liang, Zhen
    Feng, Tianrui
    Zhou, Yi
    Yang, Yongjiao
    Sun, Yujiao
    Zhou, Zhien
    Yan, Weigang
    Cao, Fenghong
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [7] Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Derived Nomogram to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer by Targeted Biopsy for Index Lesion
    Kim, Min Je
    Park, Sung Yoon
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2022, 55 (04) : 1226 - 1233
  • [8] Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Evaluation of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
    Ingole, Sarang M.
    Mehta, Rajeev U.
    Kazi, Zubair N.
    Bhuyar, Rutuja, V
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING, 2021, 31 (01): : 65 - 77
  • [9] The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Delineating Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
    Chamie, Karim
    Sonn, Geoffrey A.
    Finley, David S.
    Tan, Nelly
    Margolis, Daniel J. A.
    Raman, Steven S.
    Natarajan, Shyam
    Huang, Jiaoti
    Reiter, Robert E.
    UROLOGY, 2014, 83 (02) : 369 - 375
  • [10] Improving the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    De Visschere, Pieter
    JOURNAL OF THE BELGIAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 102 (01):