Literature DB >> 25599415

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Likert Scoring System: Multiparametric MR Imaging Validation Study to Screen Patients for Initial Biopsy.

Raphaëlle Renard-Penna1, Pierre Mozer, François Cornud, Nicolas Barry-Delongchamps, Eric Bruguière, Daniel Portalez, Bernard Malavaud.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-based Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and a Likert scale in the detection of prostate cancer in a cohort of patients undergoing initial prostate biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved two-center prospective study included 118 patients with normal digital rectal examination (DRE) results but elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (4-20 ng/mL) who were referred for initial prostate biopsies and had one suspicious (Likert scale score, ≥3) focus at prebiopsy 1.5-T multiparametric MR imaging performed with T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted [DW], and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging. Targeted core biopsies and random systematic core biopsies were performed. The elementary unit for analysis was the core. Relationships were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney U test. Yates corrected and Pearson χ(2) tests were used to evaluate categoric variables. A training set was randomly drawn to construct the receiver operating characteristic curves for the summed PI-RADS scores and for the Likert scale scores. The thresholds to recommend biopsy were obtained from the Youden J statistics and were tested in the remaining validation set in terms of predictive characteristics. Interobserver variability was analyzed by using weighed κ statistics in a random set of 50 patients.
RESULTS: Higher T2-weighted, DW, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging PI-RADS scores were observed in areas that yielded cancer-positive cores. The percentage of positive cores increased with the sum of scores aggregated in five classes as follows: For summed PI-RADS scores of 3-5, the percentage of positive cores was 2.3%; for scores of 6-8, it was 5.8%; for scores of 9 or 10, it was 24.7%; for scores of 11 or 12, it was 51.8%; and for scores of 13-15, it was 72.1% (P for trend, <.0001). For the threshold of summed PI-RADS scores of 9 or greater, sensitivity was 86.6%, specificity was 82.4%, the positive predictive value was 52.4%, the negative predictive value was 96.5%, and accuracy was 83.2%. The respective data for Likert scale scores of 3 or greater were 93.8%, 73.6%, 44.3%, 98.1%, and 73.3%. Good interobserver agreement was observed for the Likert scale (κ = 0.80) and the summed PI-RADS (κ = 0.73) scoring systems.
CONCLUSION: PI-RADS provided the site-specific stratified risk of cancer-positive cores in biopsy-naive men with normal DRE results and elevated PSA levels. There was no significant difference between summed PI-RADS scores of 9 or greater and Likert scale scores of 3 or greater in the detection of cancer in the peripheral zone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25599415     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140184

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  32 in total

1.  Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Characterizing indeterminate (Likert-score 3/5) peripheral zone prostate lesions with PSA density, PI-RADS scoring and qualitative descriptors on multiparametric MRI.

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

3.  Apparent diffusion coefficient value is a strong predictor of unsuspected aggressiveness of prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Raphaele Renard Penna; Geraldine Cancel-Tassin; Eva Comperat; Pierre Mozer; Priscilla Léon; Justine Varinot; Morgan Roupret; Marc-Olivier Bitker; Olivier Lucidarme; Olivier Cussenot
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Prostate cancer: Can image-guided biopsy findings evaluate risk of ECE?

Authors:  Daniel Portalez; Bernard Malavaud
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  PIRADS 2.0: what is new?

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.630

Review 6.  Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 7.  A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Li Zhang; Min Tang; Sipan Chen; Xiaoyan Lei; Xiaoling Zhang; Yi Huan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Contrast-ing opinions: biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI.

Authors:  Tristan Barrett
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.630

10.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Sadhna Verma; Harriet C Thoeny; Clare M Tempany; Faina Shtern; Anwar R Padhani; Daniel Margolis; Katarzyna J Macura; Masoom A Haider; Francois Cornud; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.