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
  • [21] Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1
    Gundogdu, Elif
    Emekli, Emre
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2021, 27 (01) : 15 - 19
  • [22] 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
  • [23] PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study
    Wang, Zhibing
    Zhao, Wenlu
    Shen, Junkang
    Jiang, Zhen
    Yang, Shuo
    Tan, Shuangxiu
    Zhang, Yueyue
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 45 (12) : 4142 - 4149
  • [24] PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study
    Zhibing Wang
    Wenlu Zhao
    Junkang Shen
    Zhen Jiang
    Shuo Yang
    Shuangxiu Tan
    Yueyue Zhang
    Abdominal Radiology, 2020, 45 : 4142 - 4149
  • [25] Validation of the PI-RADS language: predictive values of PI-RADS lexicon descriptors for detection of prostate cancer
    Madhuri M. Rudolph
    Alexander D. J. Baur
    Matthias Haas
    Hannes Cash
    Kurt Miller
    Samy Mahjoub
    Alexander Hartenstein
    David Kaufmann
    Roman Rotzinger
    Chau Hung Lee
    Patrick Asbach
    Bernd Hamm
    Tobias Penzkofer
    European Radiology, 2020, 30 : 4262 - 4271
  • [26] PI-RADS version 2.1 for the evaluation of transition zone lesions: a practical guide for radiologists
    Gaudiano, Caterina
    Rustici, Arianna
    Corcioni, Beniamino
    Ciccarese, Federica
    Bianchi, Lorenzo
    Schiavina, Riccardo
    Giunchi, Francesca
    Fiorentino, Michelangelo
    Brunocilla, Eugenio
    Golfieri, Rita
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 95 (1131):
  • [27] Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection
    Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.
    Babb, James S.
    Taneja, Samir S.
    Ream, Justin M.
    RADIOLOGY, 2017, 283 (01) : 119 - 129
  • [28] Prostate MRI with PI-RADS v2.1: initial detection and active surveillance
    Grace C. Lo
    Daniel J. A. Margolis
    Abdominal Radiology, 2020, 45 : 2133 - 2142
  • [29] RadioGraphics Update: PI-RADS Version 2.1-A Pictorial Update
    Purysko, Andrei S.
    Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.
    Turkbey, Ismail Baris
    Macura, Katarzyna J.
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2020, 40 (07) : E33 - E37
  • [30] Prostate MRI with PI-RADS v2.1: initial detection and active surveillance
    Lo, Grace C.
    Margolis, Daniel J. A.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 45 (07) : 2133 - 2142