Thomas Auer1, Michael Edlinger2, Jasmin Bektic3, Udo Nagele4, Thomas Herrmann5, Georg Schäfer6, Friedrich Aigner1, Daniel Junker7. 1. Department of Radiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. 2. Department of Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Health Economics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Schöpfstraße 41/1, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. 3. Department of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. 4. Landeskrankenhaus Hall, Abteilung für Urologie und Andrologie, Milser Straße 10, 6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria. 5. Klinik für Urologie und Urologische Onkologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. 6. Department of Pathology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. 7. Department of Radiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. daniel.junker@tirol-kliniken.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 1 (v1) and version 2 (v2) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Multiparametric MRIs (mpMRI) of 50 consecutive patients with biopsy proven PCa, which had originally been evaluated according to PIRADS v1, were now retrospectively re-evaluated, comparing PI-RADS v1 and v2. MpMRI data were evaluated in comparison with histopathological whole-mount step-section slides. MRI examinations included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. RESULTS: Overall PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger discriminative ability of tumor detection: PI-RADS v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.94-0.98) and v2 AUC 0.90 (95 % CI 0.86-0.94). For peripheral zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger ability of PCa discrimination: v1 AUC 0.97 (95 % CI 0.95-0.99) and v2 AUC 0.92 (95 % CI 0.88-0.96). For transition zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed more discrimination: v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.92-1.00) and v2 0.90 (95 % CI 0.83-0.97), but the difference was not significant. PI-RADS v2 resulted in significantly more false negative results (3 % in v1, 14 % in v2) and a comparable number of true positive results (82 % in v1, 80 % in v2). CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 uses a simplified approach, but shows a lower diagnostic accuracy. This could lead to a higher rate of false negative results with the risk of missing tumors within low PI-RADS score levels. Therefore, its use cannot be recommended unconditionally, and further improvement should be considered.
PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 1 (v1) and version 2 (v2) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Multiparametric MRIs (mpMRI) of 50 consecutive patients with biopsy proven PCa, which had originally been evaluated according to PIRADS v1, were now retrospectively re-evaluated, comparing PI-RADS v1 and v2. MpMRI data were evaluated in comparison with histopathological whole-mount step-section slides. MRI examinations included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. RESULTS: Overall PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger discriminative ability of tumor detection: PI-RADS v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.94-0.98) and v2 AUC 0.90 (95 % CI 0.86-0.94). For peripheral zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger ability of PCa discrimination: v1 AUC 0.97 (95 % CI 0.95-0.99) and v2 AUC 0.92 (95 % CI 0.88-0.96). For transition zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed more discrimination: v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.92-1.00) and v2 0.90 (95 % CI 0.83-0.97), but the difference was not significant. PI-RADS v2 resulted in significantly more false negative results (3 % in v1, 14 % in v2) and a comparable number of true positive results (82 % in v1, 80 % in v2). CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 uses a simplified approach, but shows a lower diagnostic accuracy. This could lead to a higher rate of false negative results with the risk of missing tumors within low PI-RADS score levels. Therefore, its use cannot be recommended unconditionally, and further improvement should be considered.
Entities:
Keywords:
Multiparametric MRI; PI-RADS; Prostate cancer
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: Berrend G Muller; Joanna H Shih; Sandeep Sankineni; Jamie Marko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin Koruthu George; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Eline K Vos; Geert J S Litjens; Thiele Kobus; Thomas Hambrock; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz; Henkjan J Huisman; Tom W J Scheenen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Amy Sabach; James S Babb; Brent W Matza; Samir S Taneja; Fang-Ming Deng Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Daniel Junker; Fabian Steinkohl; Veronika Fritz; Jasmin Bektic; Theodoros Tokas; Friedrich Aigner; Thomas R W Herrmann; Michael Rieger; Udo Nagele Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-08-04 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: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; Daniel J Margolis; David S K Lu; Nicholas Shaheen; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jiří Stejskal; Vanda Adamcová; Miroslav Záleský; Vojtěch Novák; Otakar Čapoun; Vojtěch Fiala; Olga Dolejšová; Hana Sedláčková; Štěpán Veselý; Roman Zachoval Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-03-17