PI-RADS v2 and ADC values: is there room for improvement?

被引:24
|
作者
Jordan, Eric J. [1 ]
Fiske, Charles [2 ]
Zagoria, Ronald [1 ]
Westphalen, Antonio C. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] RadNet, NorCal Imaging, Walnut Creek, CA USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, 505 Parnassus Ave,Room M-327, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
Prostate MRI; PI-RADS; ADC values; Prostate cancer; PROSTATE-CANCER DETECTION; AGGRESSIVENESS ASSESSMENT; QUANTITATIVE-ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL-MODELS; HISTOGRAM ANALYSIS; MR-IMAGES; VERSION; B-VALUES; DIAGNOSIS; BIOPSY;
D O I
10.1007/s00261-018-1557-5
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
PurposeTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of ADC values in combination with PI-RADS v2 for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CS-PCa) compared to PI-RADS v2 alone.Materials and methodsThis retrospective study included 155 men whom underwent 3-Tesla prostate MRI and subsequent MR/US fusion biopsies at a single non-academic center from 11/2014 to 3/2016. All scans were performed with a surface coil and included T2, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. Suspicious findings were classified using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 and targeted using MR/US fusion biopsies. Mixed-effect logistic regression analyses were used to determine the ability of PIRADS v2 alone and combined with ADC values to predict CS-PCa. As ADC categories are more practical in clinical situations than numeric values, an additional model with ADC categories of800 and>800 was performed.ResultsA total of 243 suspicious lesions were included, 69 of which were CS-PCa, 34 were Gleason score 3+3 PCa, and 140 were negative. The overall PIRADS v2 score, ADC values, and ADC categories are independent statistically significant predictors of CS-PCa (p<0.001). However, the area under the ROC of PIRADS v2 alone and PIRADS v2 with ADC categories are significantly different in both peripheral and transition zone lesions (p=0.026 and p=0.03, respectively) Further analysis of the ROC curves also shows that the main benefit of utilizing ADC values or categories is better discrimination of PI-RADS v2 4 lesions.ConclusionADC values and categories help to diagnose CS-PCa when lesions are assigned a PI-RADS v2 score of 4.
引用
收藏
页码:3109 / 3116
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] DOES PI-RADS V2 SCORES PREDICT ADVERSE SURGICAL PATHOLOGY AT RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY?
    Hao Nguyen
    Westphalen, Antonio
    Niloufar, Ameli
    Leapman, Michael
    Cowan, Janet
    Simko, Jeff
    Shinohara, Katsuto
    Carroll, Peter
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (04): : E1270 - E1270
  • [22] Assessment of PI-RADS v2 categories ≥ 3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Nayana U. Patel
    Kimberly E. Lind
    Kavita Garg
    David Crawford
    Priya N. Werahera
    Sajal S. Pokharel
    Abdominal Radiology, 2019, 44 : 705 - 712
  • [23] Validation of dominant and secondary sequence utilization in PI-RADS v2 for classifying prostatic lesions
    Soodana-Prakash, Nachiketh
    Castillo, R. Patricia
    Reis, Isildinha M.
    Stoyanova, Radka
    Kwon, Deukwoo
    Velasquez, Maria C.
    Nahar, Bruno
    Kannabur, Pratik
    Johnson, Taylor A.
    Swain, Sanjaya K.
    Ben-Yakar, Natalie
    Venkatramani, Vivek
    Ritch, Chad
    Satyanarayana, Ramgopal
    Gonzalgo, Mark L.
    Parekh, Dipen J.
    Bittencourt, Leonardo
    Punnen, Sanoj
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 26 (03) : 9763 - 9768
  • [24] Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2): a pictorial review
    Hassanzadeh, Elmira
    Glazer, Daniel I.
    Dunne, Ruth M.
    Fennessy, Fiona M.
    Harisinghani, Mukesh G.
    Tempany, Clare M.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2017, 42 (01) : 278 - 289
  • [25] Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2): a pictorial review
    Elmira Hassanzadeh
    Daniel I. Glazer
    Ruth M. Dunne
    Fiona M. Fennessy
    Mukesh G. Harisinghani
    Clare M. Tempany
    Abdominal Radiology, 2017, 42 : 278 - 289
  • [26] A Pictorial Review of PI-RADS v2.0 and PI-RADS v2.1: What Changed?
    Gibson, Nicolas
    Fung, Christopher
    CONTEMPORARY DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY, 2021, 44 (25) : 1 - 7
  • [27] PI-RADS V2评分系统中低评分患者临床特征分析
    赵福永
    潘家骅
    王艳青
    樊连诚
    朱寅杰
    沙建军
    董柏君
    吴广宇
    薛蔚
    临床泌尿外科杂志, 2021, 36 (09) : 679 - 682
  • [28] Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    Weinreb, Jeffrey C.
    Verma, Sadhna
    Thoeny, Harriet C.
    Tempany, Clare M.
    Shtern, Faina
    Padhani, Anwar R.
    Margolis, Daniel
    Macura, Katarzyna J.
    Haider, Masoom A.
    Cornud, Francois
    Choyke, Peter L.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (01) : 41 - 49
  • [29] Validation of the PI-RADS language: predictive values of PI-RADS lexicon descriptors for detection of prostate cancer
    Rudolph, Madhuri M.
    Baur, Alexander D. J.
    Haas, Matthias
    Cash, Hannes
    Miller, Kurt
    Mahjoub, Samy
    Hartenstein, Alexander
    Kaufmann, David
    Rotzinger, Roman
    Lee, Chau Hung
    Asbach, Patrick
    Hamm, Bernd
    Penzkofer, Tobias
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2020, 30 (08) : 4262 - 4271
  • [30] Imaging Facilities' Adherence to PI-RADS v2 Minimum Technical Standards for the Performance of Prostate MRI
    Esses, Steven J.
    Taneja, Samir S.
    Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2018, 25 (02) : 188 - 195