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
  • [41] ROLE OF PI-RADS VERSION 2 FOR PREDICTION OF INCIDENTAL PROSTATE CANCER AFTER RADICAL CYSTOPROSTATECTOMY
    Song, Wan
    Jeong, Jae Yong
    Kim, Tae Heon
    Yoon, Hyun Suk
    Kim, Kwang Hyun
    Yoon, Hana
    Chung, Woo Sik
    Sim, Bong Suk
    Lee, Dong Hyeon
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 201 (04): : E178 - E179
  • [42] Prostate Cancer: PI-RADS Version 2 Helps Preoperatively Predict Clinically Significant Cancers
    Park, Sung Yoon
    Jung, Dae Chul
    Oh, Young Taik
    Cho, Nam Hoon
    Choi, Young Deuk
    Rha, Koon Ho
    Hong, Sung Joon
    Han, Kyunghwa
    RADIOLOGY, 2016, 280 (01) : 108 - 116
  • [43] Simplified PI-RADS with Biparametric MRI: A Practical Approach to Improve Management of PI-RADS Version 2 Category 3 Lesions Response
    Turkbey, Baris
    Choyke, Peter L.
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 289 (03) : 882 - 883
  • [44] Editorial Comment: Similar Upgrade and Downgrade Rates Between PI-RADS Version 2.0 and Version 2.1
    Lawrence, Edward M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2024, 222 (01)
  • [45] Genomic Prostate Score, PI-RADS™ version 2 and Progression in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance
    Kornberg, Zachary
    Cowan, Janet E.
    Westphalen, Antonio C.
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    Chan, June M.
    Zhao, Shoujun
    Shinohara, Katsuto
    Carroll, Peter R.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 201 (02): : 300 - 306
  • [46] PI-RADS: multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer
    Aileen O’Shea
    Mukesh Harisinghani
    Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 2022, 35 : 523 - 532
  • [47] PI-RADS: multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer
    O'Shea, Aileen
    Harisinghani, Mukesh
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE MATERIALS IN PHYSICS BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2022, 35 (04) : 523 - 532
  • [48] Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS V1 and PI-RADS V2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
    He, Ying
    Cong, Ruochen
    Zhou, Jie
    Xu, Zhenyu
    Yang, Jushun
    Wang, Lin
    Xiao, Jing
    He, Bosheng
    UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2021, 18 (01) : 51 - 57
  • [49] 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
  • [50] 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