Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer

被引:62
|
作者
Tamada, Tsutomu [1 ]
Kido, Ayumu [1 ]
Takeuchi, Mitsuru [2 ]
Yamamoto, Akira [1 ]
Miyaji, Yoshiyuki [3 ]
Kanomata, Naoki [4 ]
Sone, Teruki [1 ]
机构
[1] Kawasaki Med Sch, Dept Radiol, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki, Okayama 7010192, Japan
[2] Radiolonet Tokai, Dept Radiol, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
[3] Kawasaki Med Sch, Dept Urol, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan
[4] Kawasaki Med Sch, Dept Pathol, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan
基金
日本学术振兴会;
关键词
Prostate cancer; MR imaging; Multiparametric MRI; Transition zone; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System; Version; 2; 2.1; IMAGING-TARGETED BIOPSY; DATA SYSTEM; MRI; DIFFERENTIATION; HYPERPLASIA; PERFORMANCE; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108704
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 compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 and v2.1 for detecting transition zone prostate cancer (TZPC) on multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI). Method: Fifty-eight patients with elevated PSA levels underwent mpMRI at 3 T including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and subsequent MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided prostate-targeted biopsy (MRGB). The standard of reference was MRGB-derived histopathology. Two readers independently assessed each TZ lesion, assigning a score of 1-5 for T2WI, a score of 1-5 for DWI, and the overall PI-RADS assessment category according to PI-RADS v2 and v2.1. The diagnostic performance of the two methods was compared in terms of inter-reader agreement, diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: Of the 58 patients, 26 were diagnosed with PC (GS= 3+ 3, n= 9; GS= 3+ 4, n= 9; GS= 3+ 5, n= 1; GS= 4+ 3, n= 4; GS= 4+ 4, n= 3) and 32 with benign lesions. Regarding inter-reader agreement of overall PI-RADS assessment category, the kappa value was 0.580 for v2 and 0.645 for v2.1. For both readers, there was no difference in diagnostic sensitivity between the versions (p >= 0.500). For reader 1, the diagnostic specificity was higher for v2.1 (p= 0.002), and was similar for reader 2 (p= 1.000). For both readers, AUC tended to be higher for v2.1 than for v2, but the difference was not significant (0.786 vs. 0.847 for reader 1, p= 0.052; and 0.808 vs. 0.858 for reader 2, p= 0.197). Conclusions: These results suggest that compared with PI-RADS v2, PI-RADS v2.1 could be preferable for evaluating TZ lesions.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer
    Xu, Lili
    Zhang, Gumuyang
    Zhang, Daming
    Zhang, Xiaoxiao
    Bai, Xin
    Yan, Weigang
    Zhou, Yi
    Zhou, Zhien
    Xiao, Yu
    Jin, Zhengyu
    Sun, Hao
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 45 (12) : 4133 - 4141
  • [2] Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer
    Lili Xu
    Gumuyang Zhang
    Daming Zhang
    Xiaoxiao Zhang
    Xin Bai
    Weigang Yan
    Yi Zhou
    Zhien Zhou
    Yu Xiao
    Zhengyu Jin
    Hao Sun
    Abdominal Radiology, 2020, 45 : 4133 - 4141
  • [3] 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
  • [4] 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
  • [5] Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection
    Walker, Stephanie M.
    Mehralivand, Sherif
    Harmon, Stephanie A.
    Sanford, Thomas
    Merino, Maria J.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Shih, Joanna H.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Turkbey, Baris
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2020, 215 (05) : 1098 - 1103
  • [6] Validation of PI-RADS Version 2 in Transition Zone Lesions for the Detection of Prostate Cancer
    Thai, Janice N.
    Narayanan, Harish A.
    George, Arvin K.
    Siddiqui, M. Minhaj
    Shah, Parita
    Mertan, Francesca V.
    Merino, Maria J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Turkbey, Baris
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 288 (02) : 485 - 491
  • [7] Direct Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Experience
    Byun, Jieun
    Park, Kye Jin
    Kim, Mi-hyun
    Kim, Jeong Kon
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2020, 52 (02) : 577 - 586
  • [8] Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 compared to version 2.0 for detection of peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer
    Madhuri Monique Rudolph
    Alexander Daniel Jacques Baur
    Hannes Cash
    Matthias Haas
    Samy Mahjoub
    Alexander Hartenstein
    Charlie Alexander Hamm
    Nick Lasse Beetz
    Frank Konietschke
    Bernd Hamm
    Patrick Asbach
    Tobias Penzkofer
    Scientific Reports, 10
  • [9] Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 compared to version 2.0 for detection of peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer
    Rudolph, Madhuri Monique
    Baur, Alexander Daniel Jacques
    Cash, Hannes
    Haas, Matthias
    Mahjoub, Samy
    Hartenstein, Alexander
    Hamm, Charlie Alexander
    Beetz, Nick Lasse
    Konietschke, Frank
    Hamm, Bernd
    Asbach, Patrick
    Penzkofer, Tobias
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [10] Diagnostic Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement of PI-RADS Version 2 and Version 2.1 for the Detection of Transition Zone Prostate Cancers
    Wei, Chao-gang
    Zhang, Yue-yue
    Pan, Peng
    Chen, Tong
    Yu, Hong-chang
    Dai, Guang-cheng
    Tu, Jian
    Yang, Shuo
    Zhao, Wen-lu
    Shen, Jun-kang
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2021, 216 (05) : 1247 - 1256