Alexander D J Baur1, Andreas Maxeiner, Tobias Franiel, Ergin Kilic, Alexander Huppertz, Carsten Schwenke, Bernd Hamm, Tahir Durmus. 1. From the *Institut für Radiologie, †Klinik für Urologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin; ‡Zentrum für Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena; §Institut für Pathologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte; ∥Imaging Science Institute, Charité Berlin; and ¶SCO:SSiS Statistical Consulting, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnetic resonance prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy of the prostate as a reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 55 patients who had undergone MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate, we retrospectively matched every biopsy core with the corresponding lesion in previously acquired endorectal multiparametric MRI including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) at 1.5 T. Two readers blinded to the results of the biopsy evaluated each biopsied lesion according to the PI-RADS scoring system. The results of the targeted biopsy were used as a reference standard. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 113 lesions in the 55 patients were evaluated; 30 lesions were malignant. When evaluated according to the criteria of the PI-RADS scoring system, DCE-MRI revealed a lower area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) (0.76) compared with T2WI (0.88; P=0.06) and DWI (0.93; P=0.004). A sum score combining T2WI, DWI, and DCE-MRI yielded an AUC of 0.93, whereas a sum score combining only T2WI and DWI yielded an AUC of 0.95. In central gland lesions, T2WI showed a numerically higher AUC compared with DWI (0.98 and 0.95), whereas, in peripheral zone lesions, DWI was superior (AUC of 0.93 and 0.73; P=0.04). An approach assigning a PI-RADS score for T2WI to central gland lesions and for DWI to peripheral zone lesions yielded an AUC of 0.96 and was numerically superior compared with any sequence alone and sum scores combining T2WI and DWI as well as T2WI, DWI, and DCE-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: The PI-RADS scoring system shows a good diagnostic performance for the detection of prostate cancer when using a sum score. However, DCE-MRI does not seem to add significant value when evaluated according to the recommended criteria. Assigning a score for T2WI to central gland lesions and for DWI to peripheral zone lesions might be sufficient for stratification of patients for further diagnostic workup.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnetic resonance prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy of the prostate as a reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 55 patients who had undergone MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate, we retrospectively matched every biopsy core with the corresponding lesion in previously acquired endorectal multiparametric MRI including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) at 1.5 T. Two readers blinded to the results of the biopsy evaluated each biopsied lesion according to the PI-RADS scoring system. The results of the targeted biopsy were used as a reference standard. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 113 lesions in the 55 patients were evaluated; 30 lesions were malignant. When evaluated according to the criteria of the PI-RADS scoring system, DCE-MRI revealed a lower area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) (0.76) compared with T2WI (0.88; P=0.06) and DWI (0.93; P=0.004). A sum score combining T2WI, DWI, and DCE-MRI yielded an AUC of 0.93, whereas a sum score combining only T2WI and DWI yielded an AUC of 0.95. In central gland lesions, T2WI showed a numerically higher AUC compared with DWI (0.98 and 0.95), whereas, in peripheral zone lesions, DWI was superior (AUC of 0.93 and 0.73; P=0.04). An approach assigning a PI-RADS score for T2WI to central gland lesions and for DWI to peripheral zone lesions yielded an AUC of 0.96 and was numerically superior compared with any sequence alone and sum scores combining T2WI and DWI as well as T2WI, DWI, and DCE-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: The PI-RADS scoring system shows a good diagnostic performance for the detection of prostate cancer when using a sum score. However, DCE-MRI does not seem to add significant value when evaluated according to the recommended criteria. Assigning a score for T2WI to central gland lesions and for DWI to peripheral zone lesions might be sufficient for stratification of patients for further diagnostic workup.
Authors: Daniel I Glazer; William W Mayo-Smith; Nisha I Sainani; Cheryl A Sadow; Mark G Vangel; Clare M Tempany; Ruth M Dunne Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nadia R Ayat; Jing-Can Qin; Han Cheng; Sarah Roelle; Songqi Gao; Yajuan Li; Zheng-Rong Lu Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Aritrick Chatterjee; Roger M Bourne; Shiyang Wang; Ajit Devaraj; Alexander J Gallan; Tatjana Antic; Gregory S Karczmar; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cornelis G van Niekerk; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Thomas Hambrock; Henk-Jan Huisman; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Sandra Bednarova; Brian P Calio; Dordaneh Sugano; Abhinav Sidana; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 4.813