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
  • [21] Organized Chaos: Does PI-RADS Version 2 Work in the Transition Zone?
    Weinreb, Jeffrey C.
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 288 (02) : 492 - 494
  • [22] RadioGraphics Update: PI-RADS Version 2.1-A Pictorial Update
    Purysko, Andrei S.
    Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.
    Turkbey, Ismail Baris
    Macura, Katarzyna J.
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2020, 40 (07) : E33 - E37
  • [23] Prostate MRI: practical guidelines for interpreting and reporting according to PI-RADS version 2.1
    Sanchez-Oro, R.
    Nuez, J. Torres
    Martinez-Sanz, G.
    Ortega, Q. Grau
    Bleila, M.
    RADIOLOGIA, 2020, 62 (06): : 437 - 451
  • [24] Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1
    Gundogdu, Elif
    Emekli, Emre
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2021, 27 (01) : 15 - 19
  • [25] Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MRI diagnosis strategy for prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using PI-RADS version 2.1
    Zhang, Jiahui
    Xu, Lili
    Zhang, Gumuyang
    Zhang, Xiaoxiao
    Bai, Xin
    Ji, Zhigang
    Xiao, Yu
    Sun, Hao
    Jin, Zhengyu
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 47 (08) : 2905 - 2916
  • [26] Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MRI diagnosis strategy for prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using PI-RADS version 2.1
    Jiahui Zhang
    Lili Xu
    Gumuyang Zhang
    Xiaoxiao Zhang
    Xin Bai
    Zhigang Ji
    Yu Xiao
    Hao Sun
    Zhengyu Jin
    Abdominal Radiology, 2022, 47 : 2905 - 2916
  • [27] Validation of the PI-RADS language: predictive values of PI-RADS lexicon descriptors for detection of prostate cancer
    Rudolph, Madhuri M.
    Baur, Alexander D. J.
    Haas, Matthias
    Cash, Hannes
    Miller, Kurt
    Mahjoub, Samy
    Hartenstein, Alexander
    Kaufmann, David
    Rotzinger, Roman
    Lee, Chau Hung
    Asbach, Patrick
    Hamm, Bernd
    Penzkofer, Tobias
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2020, 30 (08) : 4262 - 4271
  • [28] Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection
    Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.
    Babb, James S.
    Taneja, Samir S.
    Ream, Justin M.
    RADIOLOGY, 2017, 283 (01) : 119 - 129
  • [29] Validation of the PI-RADS language: predictive values of PI-RADS lexicon descriptors for detection of prostate cancer
    Madhuri M. Rudolph
    Alexander D. J. Baur
    Matthias Haas
    Hannes Cash
    Kurt Miller
    Samy Mahjoub
    Alexander Hartenstein
    David Kaufmann
    Roman Rotzinger
    Chau Hung Lee
    Patrick Asbach
    Bernd Hamm
    Tobias Penzkofer
    European Radiology, 2020, 30 : 4262 - 4271
  • [30] 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):