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
  • [11] 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.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 26 : 22 - 23
  • [12] Direct Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Experience
    Byun, Jieun
    Park, Kye Jin
    Kim, Mi-hyun
    Kim, Jeong Kon
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2020, 52 (02) : 577 - 586
  • [13] Diagnostic Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement of PI-RADS Version 2 and Version 2.1 for the Detection of Transition Zone Prostate Cancers
    Wei, Chao-gang
    Zhang, Yue-yue
    Pan, Peng
    Chen, Tong
    Yu, Hong-chang
    Dai, Guang-cheng
    Tu, Jian
    Yang, Shuo
    Zhao, Wen-lu
    Shen, Jun-kang
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2021, 216 (05) : 1247 - 1256
  • [14] Significance of atypical nodules upgraded to category 3 in PI-RADS version 2.1 for the prostate cancer diagnosis
    Asai, S.
    Kobayashi, M.
    Fukuda, S.
    Kimura, K.
    Fujiwara, M.
    Nakamura, Y.
    Ishikawa, Y.
    Waseda, Y.
    Tanaka, H.
    Yoshida, S.
    Yokoyama, M.
    Fujii, Y.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2023, 83
  • [15] Prostate MRI: practical guidelines for interpreting and reporting according to PI-RADS version 2.1
    Sanchez-Oro, R.
    Nuez, J. Torres
    Martinez-Sanz, G.
    Ortega, Q. Grau
    Bleila, M.
    RADIOLOGIA, 2020, 62 (06): : 437 - 451
  • [16] Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer
    Gaur, Sonia
    Harmon, Stephanie
    Mehralivand, Sherif
    Bednarova, Sandra
    Calio, Brian P.
    Sugano, Dordaneh
    Sidana, Abhinav
    Merino, Maria J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Shih, Joanna H.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Turkbey, Baris
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2018, 48 (05) : 1326 - 1335
  • [17] Correlation between Intraprostatic PSMA Uptake and MRI PI-RADS of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2.0 and PI-RADS Version 2.1
    Zhao, Jing
    Mangarova, Dilyana B.
    Brangsch, Julia
    Kader, Avan
    Hamm, Bernd
    Brenner, Winfried
    Makowski, Marcus R.
    CANCERS, 2020, 12 (12) : 1 - 13
  • [18] Editorial on "Head-to-Head Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer"
    An, Julie Y.
    Fowler, Kathryn J.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2020, 52 (02) : 587 - 588
  • [19] Validation of PI-RADS Version 2 in Transition Zone Lesions for the Detection of Prostate Cancer
    Thai, Janice N.
    Narayanan, Harish A.
    George, Arvin K.
    Siddiqui, M. Minhaj
    Shah, Parita
    Mertan, Francesca V.
    Merino, Maria J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Turkbey, Baris
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 288 (02) : 485 - 491
  • [20] Index lesion detection in multifocal prostate cancer: Simplified PI-RADS biparametric MRI vs PI-RADS v2.1 multiparametric MRI
    Scialpi, Michele
    Martorana, Eugenio
    Torre, Riccardo
    Scalera, Giovanni Battista
    Belatti, Eugenio
    Improta, Antonio
    Aisa, Maria Cristina
    Burani, Aldo
    Santini, Nicola
    D'Andrea, Alfredo
    Mancioli, Francesco Maria
    Scialpi, Pietro
    Di Blasi, Aldo
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2023, 94 : 108 - 115