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
  • [31] Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer
    Gaur, Sonia
    Harmon, Stephanie
    Mehralivand, Sherif
    Bednarova, Sandra
    Calio, Brian P.
    Sugano, Dordaneh
    Sidana, Abhinav
    Merino, Maria J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Shih, Joanna H.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Turkbey, Baris
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2018, 48 (05) : 1326 - 1335
  • [32] Significance of atypical nodules upgraded to category 3 in PI-RADS version 2.1 for the prostate cancer diagnosis
    Asai, S.
    Kobayashi, M.
    Fukuda, S.
    Kimura, K.
    Fujiwara, M.
    Nakamura, Y.
    Ishikawa, Y.
    Waseda, Y.
    Tanaka, H.
    Yoshida, S.
    Yokoyama, M.
    Fujii, Y.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2023, 83
  • [33] Accuracy and Interobserver Variability in Reporting of PI-RADS Version 2
    Flood, Thomas F.
    Pokharel, Sajal S.
    Patel, Nayana U.
    Clark, Toshimasa J.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2017, 14 (09) : 1202 - 1205
  • [34] Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection and Investigation of Multiparametric MRI-derived Markers
    Yilmaz, Enis C.
    Shih, Joanna H.
    Belue, Mason J.
    Harmon, Stephanie A.
    Phelps, Tim E.
    Garcia, Charisse
    Hazen, Lindsey A.
    Toubaji, Antoun
    Merino, Maria J.
    Gurram, Sandeep
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Turkbey, Baris
    RADIOLOGY, 2023, 307 (04)
  • [35] A practical primer on PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial essay
    Gary Lloyd Horn
    Peter Florin Hahn
    Shahin Tabatabaei
    Mukesh Harisinghani
    Abdominal Radiology, 2016, 41 : 899 - 906
  • [36] PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2
    Weinreb, Jeffrey C.
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Cornud, Francois
    Haider, Masoom A.
    Macura, Katarzyna J.
    Margolis, Daniel
    Schnall, Mitchell D.
    Shtern, Faina
    Tempany, Clare M.
    Thoeny, Harriet C.
    Verma, Sadna
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (01) : 16 - 40
  • [37] PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know
    Barrett, T.
    Turkbey, B.
    Choyke, P. L.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2015, 70 (11) : 1165 - 1176
  • [38] A practical primer on PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial essay
    Horn, Gary Lloyd, Jr.
    Hahn, Peter Florin
    Tabatabaei, Shahin
    Harisinghani, Mukesh
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2016, 41 (05) : 899 - 906
  • [39] Index lesion detection in multifocal prostate cancer: Simplified PI-RADS biparametric MRI vs PI-RADS v2.1 multiparametric MRI
    Scialpi, Michele
    Martorana, Eugenio
    Torre, Riccardo
    Scalera, Giovanni Battista
    Belatti, Eugenio
    Improta, Antonio
    Aisa, Maria Cristina
    Burani, Aldo
    Santini, Nicola
    D'Andrea, Alfredo
    Mancioli, Francesco Maria
    Scialpi, Pietro
    Di Blasi, Aldo
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2023, 94 : 108 - 115
  • [40] Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS vl
    Polanec, Stephan
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Bickel, Hubert
    Pinker-Domenig, Katja
    Georg, Dietmar
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    Aulitzky, Wolfgang
    Susani, Martin
    Baltzer, Pascal A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (06) : 1125 - 1131