Prospective Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Prostate Cancer Detection

被引:120
|
作者
Mertan, Francesca V. [1 ]
Greer, Matthew D. [1 ]
Shih, Joanna H. [6 ]
George, Arvin K. [2 ]
Kongnyuy, Michael [2 ]
Muthigi, Akhil [2 ]
Merino, Maria J. [3 ]
Wood, Bradford J. [4 ,5 ]
Pinto, Peter A. [2 ]
Choyke, Peter L. [1 ]
Turkbey, Baris [1 ]
机构
[1] NCI, Mol Imaging Program, 10 Ctr Dr,MSC 1182,Bldg 10,Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[2] NCI, Urol Oncol Branch, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[3] NCI, Pathol Lab, Bldg 10, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[4] NCI, Ctr Intervent Oncol, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[5] NIH, Ctr Clin, Radiol & Imaging Sci, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[6] NCI, Div Canc Treatment & Diag, Biometr Res Program, NIH, Rockville, MD USA
来源
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY | 2016年 / 196卷 / 03期
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
prostate; magnetic resonance imaging; diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADS; BIOPSY; GUIDELINES; DIAGNOSIS; FUSION;
D O I
10.1016/j.juro.2016.04.057
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
Purpose: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) was developed to standardize the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and provide guidelines for biopsy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings. We prospectively evaluated the cancer detection rate at each overall PI-RADSv2 score. Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 62 consecutive patients with 116 lesions who underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3T with PI-RADSv2 evaluation and subsequent targeted magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy and concurrent 12-core systematic prostate biopsy between May and September 2015. Median patient age and prostate specific antigen values were 65.5 years( range 50.3 to 76.6) and 7.10 ng/ml( range 0.47 to 863.0), respectively. Mean lesion size was 12.7 mm overall. Lesion based cancer detection rates for all tumors and for Gleason 3+4 or greater tumors at each PI-RADSv2 score were calculated. Univariate analysis was performed to assess differences in the cancer detection rate among PI-RADSv2 scores. Results: A total of 116 lesions in 62 patients were evaluated prospectively ( 0 PI-RADS 1, 18 PI-RADS 2, 19 PI-RADS 3, 47 PI-RADS 4, 32 PI-RADS 5), and the patients underwent magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy and systematic biopsy. Histopathology revealed 55 of 116( 47.4%) cancers( 17 Gleason 3+3, 16 Gleason 3+4, 6 Gleason 4+3, 12 Gleason 4+4, 3 Gleason 4+5 and 1 Gleason 5+4). Based on targeted biopsy on a per lesion basis, the overall cancer detection rates of PI-RADS 2, 3, 4 and 5 scores for all tumors was 22.2%, 15.8%, 29.8% and 78.1%, respectively. The cancer detection rate of PI-RADS 2, 3, 4 and 5 scores for Gleason 3_4 or greater tumors was 5.6%, 0%, 21.3% and 75%, respectively. Differences in the cancer detection rate between overall PI-RADS 4 and 5 scores were significant( p < 0.001 for Gleason greater than 3+3 and Gleason 3+4 or greater cancers). Conclusions: A PI-RADS score of 5 had the highest prospective cancer detection rate (78%). A PI-RADS score of 4 had only a 30% cancer detection rate, which is lower than expected. Surprisingly, no or few significant cancers were detected at a PI-RADS score of 3 (16%). These early prospective data suggest that current criteria result in a high false-positive rate that lowers the cancer detection rate. Therefore, stricter criteria may be needed in the future to decrease false-positives and increase the cancer detection rate for PI-RADS scores of 3, 4 and 5.
引用
收藏
页码:690 / 696
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CANCER DETECTION RATES OF THE PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2
    Mehralivand, Sherif
    Bednarova, Sandra
    Shih, Joanna
    Mertan, Francesca
    Gaur, Sonia
    Merino, Maria
    Wood, Bradford
    Pinto, Peter
    Choyke, Peter
    Turkbey, Baris
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (04): : E94 - E95
  • [2] 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
  • [3] Prospective evaluation of multiparametric MRI of prostate and the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 2 for prostate cancer detection
    Lim, L. Y.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 26 : 22 - 23
  • [4] 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
  • [5] 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
  • [6] Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 1 versus Version 2
    Feng ZhaoYan
    Wang Liang
    Min XiangDe
    Wang ShaoGang
    Wang GuoPing
    Cai Jie
    [J]. 中华医学杂志英文版., 2016, 129 (20)
  • [7] Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 1 versus Version 2
    Feng, Zhao-Yan
    Wang, Liang
    Min, Xiang-De
    Wang, Shao-Gang
    Wang, Guo-Ping
    Cai, Jie
    [J]. CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 129 (20) : 2451 - 2459
  • [8] 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
  • [9] Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System for the Detection of Prostate Cancer by the Results of Targeted Biopsy of the Prostate
    Baur, Alexander D. J.
    Maxeiner, Andreas
    Franiel, Tobias
    Kilic, Ergin
    Huppertz, Alexander
    Schwenke, Carsten
    Hamm, Bernd
    Durmus, Tahir
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2014, 49 (06) : 411 - 420
  • [10] Review of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2
    Wahab, Shaun A.
    Verma, Sadhna
    [J]. FUTURE ONCOLOGY, 2016, 12 (21) : 2479 - 2494