OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) proposed by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in a consecutive cohort of patients with magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound (MR/TRUS) fusion-guided biopsy. METHODS: Suspicious lesions on mpMRI at 3.0 T were scored according to the PI-RADS system before MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy and correlated to histopathology results. Statistical correlation was obtained by a Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and optimal thresholds were calculated. RESULTS: In 64 patients, 128/445 positive biopsy cores were obtained out of 95 suspicious regions of interest (ROIs). PCa was present in 27/64 (42%) of the patients. ROC results for the aggregated PI-RADS scores exhibited higher areas under the curve compared to those of the Likert score. Sensitivity/Specificity for the following thresholds were calculated: 85 %/73 % and 67 %/92 % for PI-RADS scores of 9 and 10, respectively; 85 %/60 % and 56 %/97 % for Likert scores of 3 and 4, respectively [corrected. CONCLUSIONS: The standardised ESUR PI-RADS system is beneficial to indicate the likelihood of PCa of suspicious lesions on mpMRI. It is also valuable to identify locations to be targeted with biopsy. The aggregated PI-RADS score achieved better results compared to the single five-point Likert score. KEY POINTS: • The ESUR PI-RADS scoring system was evaluated using multiparametric 3.0-T MRI. • To investigate suspicious findings, transperineal MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy was used. • PI-RADS can guide biopsy locations and improve detection of clinically significant cancer. • Biopsy procedures can be optimised, reducing unnecessary negative biopsies for patients. • The PI-RADS scoring system may contribute to more effective prostate MRI.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) proposed by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in a consecutive cohort of patients with magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound (MR/TRUS) fusion-guided biopsy. METHODS: Suspicious lesions on mpMRI at 3.0 T were scored according to the PI-RADS system before MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy and correlated to histopathology results. Statistical correlation was obtained by a Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and optimal thresholds were calculated. RESULTS: In 64 patients, 128/445 positive biopsy cores were obtained out of 95 suspicious regions of interest (ROIs). PCa was present in 27/64 (42%) of the patients. ROC results for the aggregated PI-RADS scores exhibited higher areas under the curve compared to those of the Likert score. Sensitivity/Specificity for the following thresholds were calculated: 85 %/73 % and 67 %/92 % for PI-RADS scores of 9 and 10, respectively; 85 %/60 % and 56 %/97 % for Likert scores of 3 and 4, respectively [corrected. CONCLUSIONS: The standardised ESUR PI-RADS system is beneficial to indicate the likelihood of PCa of suspicious lesions on mpMRI. It is also valuable to identify locations to be targeted with biopsy. The aggregated PI-RADS score achieved better results compared to the single five-point Likert score. KEY POINTS: • The ESUR PI-RADS scoring system was evaluated using multiparametric 3.0-T MRI. • To investigate suspicious findings, transperineal MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy was used. • PI-RADS can guide biopsy locations and improve detection of clinically significant cancer. • Biopsy procedures can be optimised, reducing unnecessary negative biopsies for patients. • The PI-RADS scoring system may contribute to more effective prostate MRI.
Authors: L Schimmöller; M Quentin; C Arsov; R S Lanzman; A Hiester; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; D Blondin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stephan H Polanec; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Peter Brader; Dietmar Georg; Shahrokh Shariat; Claudio Spick; Martin Susani; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A Baltzer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Ugo De Giorgi; Jukka Kemppainen; Angelo Del Sole; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E K Vos; M W Lagemaat; J O Barentsz; J J Fütterer; P Zámecnik; H Roozen; S Orzada; A K Bitz; M C Maas; T W J Scheenen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Anna Grenabo Bergdahl; Ulrica Wilderäng; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Jan-Erik Damber; Maria Frånlund; Kjell Geterud; Ali Khatami; Andreas Socratous; Johan Stranne; Mikael Hellström; Jonas Hugosson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Junker; Michael Quentin; Udo Nagele; Michael Edlinger; Jonathan Richenberg; Georg Schaefer; Michael Ladurner; Werner Jaschke; Wolfgang Horninger; Friedrich Aigner Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 4.226