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
  • [21] Diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer after negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
    Zattoni, Fabio
    Morlacco, Alessandro
    Soligo, Matteo
    Mancini, Mariangela
    Leone, Nicolo
    Zecchini, Giovanni
    Reitano, Giuseppe
    Bednarova, Iliana
    Lacognata, Carmelo Salvino
    Lauro, Alberto
    Zanovello, Nicola
    Novara, Giacomo
    dal Moro, Fabrizio
    CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 75 (03) : 277 - 283
  • [22] The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Delineating Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Ghavamian, Reza
    UROLOGY, 2014, 83 (02) : 375 - 375
  • [23] Is It PRIME Time for Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis?
    Ng, Alexander
    Khetrapal, Pramit
    Kasivisvanathan, Veeru
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2022, 82 (01) : 1 - 2
  • [24] Opportunistic Prostate Cancer Screening with Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (VISIONING)
    Wetterauer, Christian
    Matthias, Marc
    Pueschel, Heike
    Deckart, Alexander
    Bubendorf, Lukas
    Mortezavi, Ashkan
    Arbelaez, Emilio
    Winkel, David Jean
    Heye, Tobias
    Boll, Daniel T.
    Merkle, Elmar
    Hayoz, Stefanie
    Seifert, Helge H.
    Rentsch, Cyrill A.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2024, 10 (02): : 332 - 338
  • [25] Detection of Gleason 6 prostate cancer in patients with clinically significant prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
    Chaloupka, M.
    Bischoff, R.
    Pfitzinger, P.
    Lellig, E.
    Ledderose, S.
    Buchner, A.
    Schlenker, B.
    Stief, C.
    Clevert, D-A
    Apfelbeck, M.
    CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION, 2019, 73 (01) : 105 - 111
  • [26] Clinical Utility of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
    Wagaskar, Vinayak G.
    Levy, Micah
    Ratnani, Parita
    Moody, Kate
    Garcia, Mariely
    Pedraza, Adriana M.
    Parekh, Sneha
    Pandav, Krunal
    Shukla, Bhavya
    Prasad, Sonya
    Sobotka, Stanislaw
    Haines, Kenneth, III
    Punnen, Sanoj
    Wiklund, Peter
    Tewari, Ash
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY OPEN SCIENCE, 2021, 28 : 9 - 16
  • [27] Radiomics prediction model for the improved diagnosis o clinically significant prostate cancer on biparametric MRI
    Li, Mengjuan
    Chen, Tong
    Zhao, Wenlu
    Wei, Chaogang
    Li, Xiaobo
    Duan, Shaofeng
    Ji, Libiao
    Lu, Zhihua
    Shen, Junkang
    QUANTITATIVE IMAGING IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY, 2020, 10 (02) : 368 - +
  • [28] Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Multiparametric MRI, Biparametric MRI, and Clinical Parameters
    Oberneder, Maximilian
    Henzler, Thomas
    Kriegmair, Martin
    Vag, Tibor
    Roethke, Matthias
    Siegert, Sabine
    Lang, Roland
    Lenk, Julia
    Gawlitza, Joshua
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2024,
  • [29] External validation and comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-based predictive models for clinically significant prostate cancer
    Lee, Han Jie
    Lee, Alvin
    Yang, Xin Yan
    Law, Yan Mee
    Huang, Hong Hong
    Lau, Weber K. O.
    Lee, Lui Shiong
    Ho, Henry S. S.
    Cheng, Christopher W. S.
    Yuen, John S. P.
    Tay, Kae Jack
    Chen, Kenneth
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2021, 39 (11) : 783.e1 - 783.e10
  • [30] Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: an Updated Systematic Review
    Haider, M. A.
    Brown, J.
    Yao, X.
    Chin, J.
    Perlis, N.
    Schieda, N.
    Loblaw, A.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 33 (12) : E599 - E612