Stephanie Nougaret1,2, Nicola Robertson3, Jennifer Golia Pernicka3, Nicolas Molinari4, Andreas M Hötker3, Behfar Ehdaie5, Evis Sala3, Hedvig Hricak3, Hebert Alberto Vargas3. 1. INSERM, U1194, Institut de Recherche en Cancérologie de Montpellier (IRCM), Montpellier, France. stephanienougaret@free.fr. 2. Department of Radiology, Institut Régional du Cancer de Montpellier, Montpellier, France. stephanienougaret@free.fr. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, Room C278, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 4. Department of Statistics, UMR 5149 IMAG, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 5. Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the performance of the updated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for predicting confirmatory biopsy results in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer (PCA). METHODS: IRB-approved, retrospective study of 371 consecutive men with clinically low-risk PCA (initial biopsy Gleason score ≤6, prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, clinical stage ≤T2a) who underwent 3T-prostate MRI before confirmatory biopsy. Two independent radiologists recorded the PI-RADSv2 scores and measured the corresponding ADC values in each patient. A composite score was generated to assess the performance of combining PI-RADSv2 + ADC. RESULTS: PCA was upgraded on confirmatory biopsy in 107/371 (29%) patients. Inter-reader agreement was substantial (PI-RADSv2: k = 0.73; 95% CI [0.66-0.80]; ADC: r = 0.74; 95% CI [0.69-0.79]). Accuracies, sensitivities, specificities, positive predicted value and negative predicted value of PI-RADSv2 were 85, 89, 83, 68, 95 and 78, 82, 76, 58, 91% for ADC. PI-RADSv2 accuracy was significantly higher than that of ADC for predicting biopsy upgrade (p = 0.014). The combined PI-RADSv2 + ADC composite score did not perform better than PI-RADSv2 alone. Obviating biopsy in patients with PI-RADSv2 score ≤3 would have missed Gleason Score upgrade in 12/232 (5%) of patients. CONCLUSION: PI-RADSv2 was superior to ADC measurements for predicting PCA upgrading on confirmatory biopsy.
PURPOSE: To assess the performance of the updated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for predicting confirmatory biopsy results in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer (PCA). METHODS: IRB-approved, retrospective study of 371 consecutive men with clinically low-risk PCA (initial biopsy Gleason score ≤6, prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, clinical stage ≤T2a) who underwent 3T-prostate MRI before confirmatory biopsy. Two independent radiologists recorded the PI-RADSv2 scores and measured the corresponding ADC values in each patient. A composite score was generated to assess the performance of combining PI-RADSv2 + ADC. RESULTS: PCA was upgraded on confirmatory biopsy in 107/371 (29%) patients. Inter-reader agreement was substantial (PI-RADSv2: k = 0.73; 95% CI [0.66-0.80]; ADC: r = 0.74; 95% CI [0.69-0.79]). Accuracies, sensitivities, specificities, positive predicted value and negative predicted value of PI-RADSv2 were 85, 89, 83, 68, 95 and 78, 82, 76, 58, 91% for ADC. PI-RADSv2 accuracy was significantly higher than that of ADC for predicting biopsy upgrade (p = 0.014). The combined PI-RADSv2 + ADC composite score did not perform better than PI-RADSv2 alone. Obviating biopsy in patients with PI-RADSv2 score ≤3 would have missed Gleason Score upgrade in 12/232 (5%) of patients. CONCLUSION: PI-RADSv2 was superior to ADC measurements for predicting PCA upgrading on confirmatory biopsy.
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sima P Porten; Jared M Whitson; Janet E Cowan; Nannette Perez; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J C Vilanova; J Comet; A Capdevila; J Barceló; J L Dolz; M Huguet; C Barceló; J Aldomà; E Delgado Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2001 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marc A Dall'Era; Peter C Albertsen; Christopher Bangma; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland; Laurence H Klotz; Christopher Parker; Mark S Soloway Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jean-Michel Correas; Ethan J Halpern; Richard G Barr; Sangeet Ghai; Jochen Walz; Sylvain Bodard; Charles Dariane; Jean de la Rosette Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Daniel F Osses; Frank-Jan H Drost; Jan F M Verbeek; Sebastiaan Remmers; Geert J L H van Leenders; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-02
Authors: Zachary A Glaser; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Kristin K Porter; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Lei Hu; Da Wei Zhou; Cai Xia Fu; Thomas Benkert; Yun Feng Xiao; Li Ming Wei; Jun Gong Zhao Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 6.244