Prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 in combination with clinical parameters for prostate cancer detection: a single center experience

被引:1
|
作者
Wang, Lei [1 ]
Luo, Yi [2 ]
Liu, Tongzu [2 ]
Deng, Ming [3 ]
Huang, Xing [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Zhejiang Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Radiat Oncol, Sch Med, Hangzhou, Peoples R China
[2] Wuhan Univ, Zhongnan Hosp, Dept Urol, Wuhan 430071, Peoples R China
[3] Wuhan Univ, Zhongnan Hosp, Dept Radiol, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[4] Wuhan Univ, Zhongnan Hosp, Ctr Evidence Based & Translat Med, Wuhan, Peoples R China
关键词
Prostate cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate specific antigen; Biopsy; Diagnosis; INDEX; PI-RADS(TM); PERFORMANCE; STATISTICS; BIOPSIES; DENSITY; BENIGN; CHINA; RISK; MRI;
D O I
10.1007/s11255-023-03631-z
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
PurposeThe diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) has been challenged due to its lower diagnostic accuracy and higher false-positive rates for prostate cancer detection. This study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 in combination with clinical parameters in patients with suspected prostate cancer.Material and MethodsA total of 424 men with suspicion of prostate cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer defined as a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater. The prediction performance was compared with prostate specific antigen (PSA), free/total PSA ratio (f/t PSA), PSA density (PSAD), PI-RADS v2 alone, and PI-RADS v2 plus PSAD using receiver operating characteristics (ROCs).ResultsIn total, 231 out of 424 cases (54.48%) were pathologically diagnosed as prostate cancer. The percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer was higher in patients with PI-RADS v2 score of 4 or greater compared to PI-RADS v2 score of less than 4 (90.86% vs. 55.88%, P < 0.001). Age, PSA level, f/t PSA, PSAD, and PI-RADS v2 were significant independent predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer. The ROC area under the curve of PI-RADS v2 plus PSAD (0.952) was larger compared with PSA (0.845), f/t PSA (0.719), PSAD (0.920), and PI-RADS v2 alone (0.885).ConclusionPI-RADS v2 in combination with PSAD may help detect clinically significant prostate cancer and provide benefit in making the decision to biopsy men at suspicion of prostate cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:1659 / 1664
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 in combination with clinical parameters for prostate cancer detection: a single center experience
    Lei Wang
    Yi Luo
    Tongzu Liu
    Ming Deng
    Xing Huang
    [J]. International Urology and Nephrology, 2023, 55 : 1659 - 1664
  • [2] PROSTATE IMAGING-REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2 IN COMBINATION WITH CLINICAL PARAMETERS FOR PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION
    Wang, Lei
    Luo, Yi
    Liu, Tongzu
    Deng, Ming
    Wakimoto, Hiroaki
    Huang, Xing
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 209 : E108 - E108
  • [3] Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2: Beyond Prostate Cancer Detection
    Park, Sung Yoon
    Cho, Nam Hoon
    Jung, Dae Chul
    Oh, Young Taik
    [J]. KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 19 (02) : 193 - 200
  • [4] Validation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer
    Hofbauer, Sebastian L.
    Maxeiner, Andreas
    Kittner, Beatrice
    Heckmann, Robin
    Reimann, Maximillian
    Wiemer, Laura
    Asbach, Patrick
    Haas, Matthias
    Penzkofer, Tobias
    Stephan, Carsten
    Friedersdorff, Frank
    Fuller, Florian
    Miller, Kurt
    Cash, Hannes
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 200 (04): : 767 - 772
  • [5] Validation of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2: A Retrospective Analysis
    Nguyentat, Michael
    Ushinsky, Alexander
    Miranda-Aguirre, Alessandra
    Uchio, Edward
    Lall, Chandana
    Shirkhoda, Layla
    Lee, Thomas
    Green, Christopher
    Houshyar, Roozbeh
    [J]. CURRENT PROBLEMS IN DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY, 2018, 47 (06) : 404 - 409
  • [6] Prospective Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Prostate Cancer Detection
    Mertan, Francesca V.
    Greer, Matthew D.
    Shih, Joanna H.
    George, Arvin K.
    Kongnyuy, Michael
    Muthigi, Akhil
    Merino, Maria J.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Turkbey, Baris
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 196 (03): : 690 - 696
  • [7] Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 and the Implementation of High-quality Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Barentsz, Jelle
    de Rooij, Maarten
    Villeirs, Geert
    Weinreb, Jeffrey
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 72 (02) : 189 - 191
  • [8] Validation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Mehralivand, Sherif
    Turkbey, Baris
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 200 (04): : 772 - 773
  • [9] Prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 has improved biopsy tumor grade accuracy: a single, tertiary institutional experience
    Park, Yong Woo
    Kang, Kyung A.
    Kim, Chan Kyo
    Park, Sung Yoon
    [J]. ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2023, 48 (07) : 2370 - 2378
  • [10] Prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 has improved biopsy tumor grade accuracy: a single, tertiary institutional experience
    Yong Woo Park
    Kyung A Kang
    Chan Kyo Kim
    Sung Yoon Park
    [J]. Abdominal Radiology, 2023, 48 : 2370 - 2378