PURPOSE: Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring system for classifying multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging findings of the prostate using whole-mount step-section slides as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective inclusion of 50 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa). All patients received a multi-parametric MRI of the prostate, consisting of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. After prostatectomy, all prostates were prepared as whole-mount step-section slides. For each patient, six lesions were predefined on whole-mount step-sections according to a distinct scheme and the corresponding regions were identified on MRI. Each lesion then was scored on MRI according to PI-RADS by an experienced blinded uro-radiologist and compared with histopathological findings. RESULTS: PCa received significant (p < 0.01) higher overall PI-RADS scores (4.10 ± 0.75) compared with benign changes (2.00 ± 0.74). In the peripheral zone, each single modality score showed good diagnostic accuracy for PCa detection (area under the curve [AUC] > 0.90). When combining all single modality scores, an even higher discriminative ability of PCa detection (AUC = 0.97, 95 % CI 0.95-0.99) could be achieved. In contrast, in the transitional zone, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE) showed very low diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.60). Regarding tumor malignancy, no high-grade PCa (Gleason >7a) was present at PI-RADS scores <4 and no Gleason 6 PCa at a PI-RADS score of 5. CONCLUSION: The PI-RADS scoring system showed good diagnostic accuracy: Only PI-RADS 4 and 5 showed high-grade PCa. However, it seems necessary to revise the PI-RADS scoring system concerning DCE in the transitional zone.
PURPOSE: Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring system for classifying multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging findings of the prostate using whole-mount step-section slides as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective inclusion of 50 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa). All patients received a multi-parametric MRI of the prostate, consisting of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. After prostatectomy, all prostates were prepared as whole-mount step-section slides. For each patient, six lesions were predefined on whole-mount step-sections according to a distinct scheme and the corresponding regions were identified on MRI. Each lesion then was scored on MRI according to PI-RADS by an experienced blinded uro-radiologist and compared with histopathological findings. RESULTS: PCa received significant (p < 0.01) higher overall PI-RADS scores (4.10 ± 0.75) compared with benign changes (2.00 ± 0.74). In the peripheral zone, each single modality score showed good diagnostic accuracy for PCa detection (area under the curve [AUC] > 0.90). When combining all single modality scores, an even higher discriminative ability of PCa detection (AUC = 0.97, 95 % CI 0.95-0.99) could be achieved. In contrast, in the transitional zone, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE) showed very low diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.60). Regarding tumor malignancy, no high-grade PCa (Gleason >7a) was present at PI-RADS scores <4 and no Gleason 6 PCa at a PI-RADS score of 5. CONCLUSION: The PI-RADS scoring system showed good diagnostic accuracy: Only PI-RADS 4 and 5 showed high-grade PCa. However, it seems necessary to revise the PI-RADS scoring system concerning DCE in the transitional zone.
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: M C Roethke; T H Kuru; S Schultze; D Tichy; A Kopp-Schneider; M Fenchel; H-P Schlemmer; B A Hadaschik Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Matthias C Roethke; Philip Rieker; Wilfried Roth; Michael Fenchel; Markus Hohenfellner; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Diederik M Somford; Inge M van Oort; Henk Vergunst; Jorg R Oddens; Geert A Smits; Monique J Roobol; Meelan Bul; Thomas Hambrock; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Rajan T Gupta; Daniel J Margolis; Nathan Lay; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Gianluigi Taverna; Giorgio Bozzini; Fabio Grizzi; Mauro Seveso; Alberto Mandressi; Luca Balzarini; Federica Mrakic; Pietro Bono; Oliviero De Franceco; NicolòMaria Buffi; Giovanni Lughezzani; Massimo Lazzeri; Paolo Casale; Giorgio Ferruccio Guazzoni Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 4.226
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
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105