OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for significant prostate cancer with transperineal sector biopsy (TPSB) as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included consecutive patients who presented for TPSB between July 2012 and November 2013 after mpMRI (T2- and diffusion-weighted images, 1.5 Tesla scanner, 8-channel body coil). A specialist uro-radiologist, blinded to clinical details, assigned qualitative prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scores on a Likert-type scale, denoting the likelihood of significant prostate cancer as follows: 1, highly unlikely; 3, equivocal; and 5, highly likely. TPSBs sampled 24-40 cores (depending on prostate size) per patient. Significant prostate cancer was defined as the presence of Gleason pattern 4 or cancer core length ≥6 mm. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were included in the analysis. Indications were: a previous negative transrectal biopsy with continued suspicion of prostate cancer (n = 103); primary biopsy (n = 83); and active surveillance (n = 15). Patients' mean (±sd) age, prostate-specific antigen and prostate volumes were 65 (±7) years, 12.8 (±12.4) ng/mL and 62 (±36) mL, respectively. Overall, biopsies were benign, clinically insignificant and clinically significant in 124 (62%), 20 (10%) and 57 (28%) patients, respectively. Two of 88 men with a PI-RADS score of 1 or 2 had significant prostate cancer, giving a sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87-99) and a specificity of 60% (95% CI 51-68) at this threshold. Receiver-operator curve analysis gave an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.92). The negative predictive value of a PI-RADS score of ≤2 for clinically significant prostate cancer was 97.7% CONCLUSION: We found that PI-RADS scoring performs well as a predictor for biopsy outcome and could be used in the decision-making process for prostate biopsy.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for significant prostate cancer with transperineal sector biopsy (TPSB) as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included consecutive patients who presented for TPSB between July 2012 and November 2013 after mpMRI (T2- and diffusion-weighted images, 1.5 Tesla scanner, 8-channel body coil). A specialist uro-radiologist, blinded to clinical details, assigned qualitative prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scores on a Likert-type scale, denoting the likelihood of significant prostate cancer as follows: 1, highly unlikely; 3, equivocal; and 5, highly likely. TPSBs sampled 24-40 cores (depending on prostate size) per patient. Significant prostate cancer was defined as the presence of Gleason pattern 4 or cancer core length ≥6 mm. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were included in the analysis. Indications were: a previous negative transrectal biopsy with continued suspicion of prostate cancer (n = 103); primary biopsy (n = 83); and active surveillance (n = 15). Patients' mean (±sd) age, prostate-specific antigen and prostate volumes were 65 (±7) years, 12.8 (±12.4) ng/mL and 62 (±36) mL, respectively. Overall, biopsies were benign, clinically insignificant and clinically significant in 124 (62%), 20 (10%) and 57 (28%) patients, respectively. Two of 88 men with a PI-RADS score of 1 or 2 had significant prostate cancer, giving a sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87-99) and a specificity of 60% (95% CI 51-68) at this threshold. Receiver-operator curve analysis gave an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.92). The negative predictive value of a PI-RADS score of ≤2 for clinically significant prostate cancer was 97.7% CONCLUSION: We found that PI-RADS scoring performs well as a predictor for biopsy outcome and could be used in the decision-making process for prostate biopsy.
Authors: Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Harbir S Sidhu; Nikolaos Dikaios; Edward W Johnston; Lucy Am Simmons; Alex Freeman; Alexander Ps Kirkham; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Findlay MacAskill; Su-Min Lee; David Eldred-Evans; Wahyu Wulaningsih; Rick Popert; Konrad Wolfe; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Giles Rottenberg; Sidath H Liyanage; Peter Acher Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Fabian Steinkohl; Leonhard Gruber; Jasmin Bektic; Udo Nagele; Friedrich Aigner; Thomas R W Herrmann; Michael Rieger; Daniel Junker Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 4.226