Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection

被引:25
|
作者
Walker, Stephanie M. [1 ]
Mehralivand, Sherif [1 ]
Harmon, Stephanie A. [1 ,2 ]
Sanford, Thomas [1 ]
Merino, Maria J. [3 ]
Wood, Bradford J. [4 ,5 ]
Shih, Joanna H. [6 ]
Pinto, Peter A. [7 ]
Choyke, Peter L. [1 ]
Turkbey, Baris [1 ]
机构
[1] NCI, Mol Imaging Program, NIH, 10 Ctr Dr,Rm B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[2] Frederick Natl Lab Canc Res, Clin Res Directorate, Bethesda, MD USA
[3] NCI, Lab Pathol, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[4] NCI, Ctr Intervent Oncol, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[5] NIH, Radiol & Imaging Sci, Clin Ctr, Bldg 10, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[6] NCI, Biometr Res Branch, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[7] NCI, Urol Oncol Branch, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
early detection; multiparametric MRI; PI-RADS; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; BIOPSY; MRI; DIAGNOSIS; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.19.22679
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
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data and System version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1), which was released in March 2019 to update version 2.0, for prostate cancer detection with transrectal ultrasound-MRI fusion biopsy and 12-core systematic biopsy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. This prospective study included 110 consecutively registered patients who underwent multiparametric MRI evaluated with PI-RADSv2.1 criteria followed by fusion biopsy and systematic biopsy between April and September 2019. Lesion-based cancer detection rates (CDRs) were calculated for prostate cancer (Gleason grade group, > 0) and clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason grade group, > 1). RESULTS. A total of 171 lesions (median size, 1.1 cm) in 110 patients were detected and evaluated with PI-RADSv2.1. In 16 patients no lesion was detected, and only systematic biopsy was performed. Lesions were categorized as follows: PI-RADS category 1, 1 lesion; PI-RADS category 2, 34 lesions; PI-RADS category 3, 54 lesions; PI-RADS category 4, 52 lesions; and PI-RADS category 5, 30 lesions. Histopathologic analysis revealed prostate cancer in 74 of 171 (43.3%) lesions and clinically significant prostate cancer in 57 of 171 (33.3%) lesions. The CDRs of prostate cancer for PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions were 20.0%, 24.1%, 51.9%, and 90.0%. The CDRs of clinically significant prostate cancer for PI-RADS 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions were 0%, 5.7%, 14.8%, 44.2%, and 80.0%. In 16 patients with normal multiparametric MRI findings ( PI-RADS 1), the CDRs were 50.0% for PCa and 18.8% for clinically significant prostate cancer. CONCLUSION. This investigation yielded CDRs assessed with prospectively assigned PI-RADSv2.1 scores. CDRs increased with higher PI-RADSv2.1 scores. These results can be compared with previously published outcomes derived with PI-RADS version 2.0.
引用
收藏
页码:1098 / 1103
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Re: Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection
    Siegel, Cary
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 205 (04): : 1205 - 1206
  • [2] Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer
    Tamada, Tsutomu
    Kido, Ayumu
    Takeuchi, Mitsuru
    Yamamoto, Akira
    Miyaji, Yoshiyuki
    Kanomata, Naoki
    Sone, Teruki
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 121
  • [3] Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection and Investigation of Multiparametric MRI-derived Markers
    Yilmaz, Enis C.
    Shih, Joanna H.
    Belue, Mason J.
    Harmon, Stephanie A.
    Phelps, Tim E.
    Garcia, Charisse
    Hazen, Lindsey A.
    Toubaji, Antoun
    Merino, Maria J.
    Gurram, Sandeep
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Turkbey, Baris
    RADIOLOGY, 2023, 307 (04)
  • [4] Prostate cancer in PI-RADS scores 1 and 2 version 2.1: a comparison to previous PI-RADS versions
    Bogner, Katja
    Engelhard, Karl
    Wuest, Wolfgang
    Hamel, Sajad
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 47 (06) : 2187 - 2196
  • [5] Prostate cancer in PI-RADS scores 1 and 2 version 2.1: a comparison to previous PI-RADS versions
    Katja Bogner
    Karl Engelhard
    Wolfgang Wuest
    Sajad Hamel
    Abdominal Radiology, 2022, 47 : 2187 - 2196
  • [6] Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer
    Lili Xu
    Gumuyang Zhang
    Daming Zhang
    Xiaoxiao Zhang
    Xin Bai
    Weigang Yan
    Yi Zhou
    Zhien Zhou
    Yu Xiao
    Zhengyu Jin
    Hao Sun
    Abdominal Radiology, 2020, 45 : 4133 - 4141
  • [7] Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer
    Xu, Lili
    Zhang, Gumuyang
    Zhang, Daming
    Zhang, Xiaoxiao
    Bai, Xin
    Yan, Weigang
    Zhou, Yi
    Zhou, Zhien
    Xiao, Yu
    Jin, Zhengyu
    Sun, Hao
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 45 (12) : 4133 - 4141
  • [8] Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 compared to version 2.0 for detection of peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer
    Madhuri Monique Rudolph
    Alexander Daniel Jacques Baur
    Hannes Cash
    Matthias Haas
    Samy Mahjoub
    Alexander Hartenstein
    Charlie Alexander Hamm
    Nick Lasse Beetz
    Frank Konietschke
    Bernd Hamm
    Patrick Asbach
    Tobias Penzkofer
    Scientific Reports, 10
  • [9] Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 compared to version 2.0 for detection of peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer
    Rudolph, Madhuri Monique
    Baur, Alexander Daniel Jacques
    Cash, Hannes
    Haas, Matthias
    Mahjoub, Samy
    Hartenstein, Alexander
    Hamm, Charlie Alexander
    Beetz, Nick Lasse
    Konietschke, Frank
    Hamm, Bernd
    Asbach, Patrick
    Penzkofer, Tobias
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [10] PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI
    Barrett, T.
    Rajesh, A.
    Rosenkrantz, A. B.
    Choyke, P. L.
    Turkbey, B.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2019, 74 (11) : 841 - 852