Prostate Cancer: PI-RADS Version 2 Helps Preoperatively Predict Clinically Significant Cancers

被引:128
|
作者
Park, Sung Yoon [1 ,2 ]
Jung, Dae Chul [1 ,2 ]
Oh, Young Taik [1 ,2 ]
Cho, Nam Hoon [3 ]
Choi, Young Deuk [4 ]
Rha, Koon Ho [4 ,5 ]
Hong, Sung Joon [4 ]
Han, Kyunghwa
机构
[1] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, 50 Yonsei Ro, Seoul 120752, South Korea
[2] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Res Inst Radiol Sci, 50 Yonsei Ro, Seoul 120752, South Korea
[3] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Dept Pathol, 50 Yonsei Ro, Seoul 120752, South Korea
[4] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Dept Urol, 50 Yonsei Ro, Seoul 120752, South Korea
[5] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Avison Biomed Res Ctr, 50 Yonsei Ro, Seoul 120752, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; TARGETED BIOPSY; SCORING SYSTEM; GUIDED BIOPSY; MRI; BENIGN;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.16151133
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To retrospectively analyze whether Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 is helpful for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approved this retrospective study. A total of 425 patients with prostate cancer who had undergone magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and radical prostatectomy were included. Preoperative parameters such as prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score, greatest percentage of the core, percentage of the positive core number, and score at PI-RADS version 2 with MR imaging were investigated. Two independent readers performed PI-RADS scoring. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as follows: (a) Gleason score of 7 or greater, (b) tumor volume of 0.5 cm(3) or greater, or a (c) positive extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion. The reference standard was based on review of surgical specimen. Logistic regression was conducted to determine which parameters are associated with the presence of clinically significant cancer. Interreader agreement (ie, score >= 4 or not) was investigated by using k statistics. Results: At univariate analysis, all of the preoperative parameters were significant for clinically significant prostate cancer (P < .05). However, multivariate analysis revealed that PIRADS score was the only significant parameter for both readers (reader 1: odds ratio = 28.170, P = .002; reader 2: odds ratio = 5.474, P = .007). The interreader agreement was excellent for PI-RADS score of 4 or greater (weighted k = 0.801; 95% confidence interval: 0.737, 0.865). Conclusion: The use of PI-RADS version 2 may help preoperatively diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. (C) RSNA, 2016
引用
收藏
页码:108 / 116
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of Likert and PI-RADS version 2 MRI scoring systems for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Zawaideh, Jeries P.
    Sala, Evis
    Pantelidou, Maria
    Shaida, Nadeem
    Koo, Brendan
    Caglic, Iztok
    Warren, Anne Y.
    Carmisciano, Luca
    Saeb-Parsy, Kasra
    Gnanapragasam, Vincent J.
    Kastner, Christof
    Barrett, Tristan
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2020, 93 (1112):
  • [2] Prebiopsy Biparametric MRI for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection With PI-RADS Version 2: A Multicenter Study
    Choi, Moon Hyung
    Kim, Chan Kyo
    Lee, Young Joon
    Jung, Seung Eun
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 212 (04) : 839 - 846
  • [3] PI-RADS Version 2: Detection of Clinically Significant Cancer in Patients With Biopsy Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer
    Seo, Ji Won
    Shin, Su-Jin
    Oh, Young Taik
    Jung, Dae Chul
    Cho, Nam Hoon
    Choi, Young Deuk
    Park, Sung Yoon
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2017, 209 (01) : W1 - W9
  • [4] Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer
    Tamada, Tsutomu
    Kido, Ayumu
    Takeuchi, Mitsuru
    Yamamoto, Akira
    Miyaji, Yoshiyuki
    Kanomata, Naoki
    Sone, Teruki
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 121
  • [5] The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Zhao, Chenglin
    Gao, Ge
    Fang, Dong
    Li, Feiyu
    Yang, Xuedong
    Wang, He
    He, Qun
    Wang, Xiaoying
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2016, 40 (05) : 885 - 888
  • [6] Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 1 regarding interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Becker, Anton S.
    Cornelius, Alexander
    Reiner, Cacilia S.
    Stocker, Daniel
    Ulbrich, Erika J.
    Barth, Borna K.
    Mortezavi, Ashkan
    Eberli, Daniel
    Donati, Olivio F.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2017, 94 : 58 - 63
  • [7] Prostate cancer in PI-RADS scores 1 and 2 version 2.1: a comparison to previous PI-RADS versions
    Bogner, Katja
    Engelhard, Karl
    Wuest, Wolfgang
    Hamel, Sajad
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 47 (06) : 2187 - 2196
  • [8] Prostate cancer in PI-RADS scores 1 and 2 version 2.1: a comparison to previous PI-RADS versions
    Katja Bogner
    Karl Engelhard
    Wolfgang Wuest
    Sajad Hamel
    Abdominal Radiology, 2022, 47 : 2187 - 2196
  • [9] A PI-RADS STRATIFIED RISK CALCULATOR FOR PREDICTION OF CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROSTATE CANCER AT BIOPSY
    Andreas, Darian
    Nethala, Daniel
    Pandya, Shashank
    Alaiev, Daniel
    Samadder, Aishe
    Lee, Jeffrey
    Martinez, Mariela
    Hall, Simon
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 206 : E1007 - E1007
  • [10] PI-RADS 3 score: A retrospective experience of clinically significant prostate cancer detection
    Camacho, Andres
    Salah, Fatima
    Bay, Camden P.
    Waring, Jonathan
    Umeton, Renato
    Hirsch, Michelle S.
    Cole, Alexander P.
    Kibel, Adam S.
    Loda, Massimo
    Tempany, Clare M.
    Fennessy, Fiona M.
    BJUI COMPASS, 2023, 4 (04): : 473 - 481