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

被引:56
|
作者
Hofbauer, Sebastian L. [1 ]
Maxeiner, Andreas [1 ]
Kittner, Beatrice [1 ]
Heckmann, Robin [1 ]
Reimann, Maximillian [1 ]
Wiemer, Laura [1 ]
Asbach, Patrick [2 ]
Haas, Matthias [2 ]
Penzkofer, Tobias [2 ,3 ]
Stephan, Carsten [1 ]
Friedersdorff, Frank
Fuller, Florian [1 ]
Miller, Kurt [1 ]
Cash, Hannes [1 ]
机构
[1] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Urol, Hindenburgdamm 30, D-12200 Berlin, Germany
[2] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Radiol, Berlin, Germany
[3] Berlin Inst Hlth, Berlin, Germany
来源
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY | 2018年 / 200卷 / 04期
关键词
prostatic neoplasms; image-guided biopsy; neoplasm grading; diagnosis; radiographic image interpretation; computer-assisted; ULTRASOUND FUSION BIOPSY; TARGETED BIOPSY; GUIDED BIOPSY; PI-RADS; GUIDELINES; DIAGNOSIS; SCORE;
D O I
10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.003
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: The second version of the PI-RADS (TM) (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) was introduced in 2015 to standardize the interpretation and reporting of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Recently low cancer detection rates were reported for PI-RADS version 2 category 4 lesions. Therefore the aim of the study was to evaluate the cancer detection rate of PI-RADS version 2 in a large prospective cohort. Materials and Methods: The study included 704 consecutive men with primary or prior negative biopsies who underwent magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided targeted biopsy and 10-core systematic prostate biopsy betweenSeptember 2015 and May 2017. All lesions were rated according to PI-RADS version 2 and lesions with PI-RADS version 2 category 3 or greater were biopsied. An ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) score of 2 or greater (ie Gleason 3 + 4 or greater) was defined as clinically significant prostate cancer. Results: The overall cancer detection rate of PI-RADS version 2 categories 3, 4 and 5 was 39%, 72% and 91% for all prostate cancer, and 23%, 49% and 77% for all clinically significant prostate cancer, respectively. If only targeted biopsy had been performed, 59 clinically significant tumors (16%) would have been missed. The PI-RADS version 2 score was significantly associated with the presence of prostate cancer (p < 0.001), the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer (p < 0.001) and the ISUP grade (p < 0.001). Conclusions: PI-RADS version 2 is significantly associated with the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. The cancer detection rate of PI-RADS version 2 category 4 lesions was considerably higher than previously reported. When performing targeted biopsy, the combination with systematic biopsy still provides the highest detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:767 / 772
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] 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
  • [2] 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
  • [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] 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)
  • [5] 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
  • [6] 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
  • [7] 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
  • [8] 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
  • [9] Review of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2
    Wahab, Shaun A.
    Verma, Sadhna
    [J]. FUTURE ONCOLOGY, 2016, 12 (21) : 2479 - 2494
  • [10] 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