Literature DB >> 28727501

Validation of the Dominant Sequence Paradigm and Role of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Imaging in PI-RADS Version 2.

Matthew D Greer1, Joanna H Shih1, Nathan Lay1, Tristan Barrett1, Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt1, Samuel Borofsky1, Ismail M Kabakus1, Yan Mee Law1, Jamie Marko1, Haytham Shebel1, Francesca V Mertan1, Maria J Merino1, Bradford J Wood1, Peter A Pinto1, Ronald M Summers1, Peter L Choyke1, Baris Turkbey1.   

Abstract

Purpose To validate the dominant pulse sequence paradigm and limited role of dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 for prostate multiparametric MR imaging by using data from a multireader study. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant retrospective interpretation of prospectively acquired data was approved by the local ethics committee. Patients were treatment-naïve with endorectal coil 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. A total of 163 patients were evaluated, 110 with prostatectomy after multiparametric MR imaging and 53 with negative multiparametric MR imaging and systematic biopsy findings. Nine radiologists participated in this study and interpreted images in 58 patients, on average (range, 56-60 patients). Lesions were detected with PI-RADS version 2 and were compared with whole-mount prostatectomy findings. Probability of cancer detection for overall, T2-weighted, and diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging PI-RADS scores was calculated in the peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ) by using generalized estimating equations. To determine dominant pulse sequence and benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated as the ratio of odds of cancer of two consecutive scores by logistic regression. Results A total of 654 lesions (420 in the PZ) were detected. The probability of cancer detection for PI-RADS category 2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions was 15.7%, 33.1%, 70.5%, and 90.7%, respectively. DW imaging outperformed T2-weighted imaging in the PZ (OR, 3.49 vs 2.45; P = .008). T2-weighted imaging performed better but did not clearly outperform DW imaging in the TZ (OR, 4.79 vs 3.77; P = .494). Lesions classified as PI-RADS category 3 at DW MR imaging and as positive at DCE imaging in the PZ showed a higher probability of cancer detection than did DCE-negative PI-RADS category 3 lesions (67.8% vs 40.0%, P = .02). The addition of DCE imaging to DW imaging in the PZ was beneficial (OR, 2.0; P = .027), with an increase in the probability of cancer detection of 15.7%, 16.0%, and 9.2% for PI-RADS category 2, 3, and 4 lesions, respectively. Conclusion DW imaging outperforms T2-weighted imaging in the PZ; T2-weighted imaging did not show a significant difference when compared with DW imaging in the TZ by PI-RADS version 2 criteria. The addition of DCE imaging to DW imaging scores in the PZ yields meaningful improvements in probability of cancer detection. © RSNA, 2017 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on July 27, 2017. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28727501      PMCID: PMC5708285          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017161316

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


  17 in total

1.  Goodness-of-fit tests for GEE modeling with binary responses.

Authors:  H X Barnhart; J M Williamson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Prostate Cancer: The European Society of Urogenital Radiology Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Criteria for Predicting Extraprostatic Extension by Using 3-T Multiparametric MR Imaging.

Authors:  Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Geert Litjens; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Baris Turkbey; Emerson Leandro Gasparetto; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-04-03       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40: Is Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Really Necessary When Searching for Prostate Cancer?

Authors:  Erik Rud; Eduard Baco
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging.

Authors:  Oguz Akin; Evis Sala; Chaya S Moskowitz; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Nicole M Ishill; Darko Pucar; Peter T Scardino; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images?

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Vijay P Shah; Yuxi Pang; Marcelino Bernardo; Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Julia Locklin; Angelo A Baccala; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Maria J Merino; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-12-21       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Prostate cancer detection with MRI: is dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging necessary in addition to diffusion-weighted imaging?

Authors:  Jin Iwazawa; Takashi Mitani; Seitaro Sassa; Shoichi Ohue
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 2.630

7.  Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Tiphaine Vaché; Flavie Bratan; Florence Mège-Lechevallier; Sylvain Roche; Muriel Rabilloud; Olivier Rouvière
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-06-15       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Reply to Erik Rud and Eduard Baco's Letter to the Editor re: Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Faina Shtern; Anwar R Padhani; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadhna Verma; Jeffrey C Weinreb
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for mpMRI of the prostate: a whole-mount step-section analysis.

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

Review 10.  The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chen Jie; Liu Rongbo; Tan Ping
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  31 in total

1.  Population net benefit of prostate MRI with high spatiotemporal resolution contrast-enhanced imaging: A decision curve analysis.

Authors:  Vinay Prabhu; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ricardo Otazo; Daniel K Sodickson; Stella K Kang
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric MRI of the prostate: are gadolinium-based contrast agents needed for routine examinations?

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

Review 3.  Arguments against using an abbreviated or biparametric prostate MRI protocol.

Authors:  Felipe B Franco; Fiona M Fennessy
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

4.  [Importance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for the detection and monitoring of prostate cancer].

Authors:  R Ganzer; W Brummeisl; F S Siokou; R Scheck; T Franz; P Ho-Thi; A Mangold
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Perspective: a critical assessment of PI-RADS 2.1.

Authors:  T Ullrich; L Schimmöller
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

6.  Interreader Variability of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Detecting and Assessing Prostate Cancer Lesions at Prostate MRI.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jeffrey Weinreb; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Geert Villeirs; Baris Turkbey; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Sandra Bednarova; Brian P Calio; Dordaneh Sugano; Abhinav Sidana; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-03-31       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Predicting clinically significant prostate cancer from quantitative image features including compressed sensing radial MRI of prostate perfusion using machine learning: comparison with PI-RADS v2 assessment scores.

Authors:  David Jean Winkel; Hanns-Christian Breit; Bibo Shi; Daniel T Boll; Hans-Helge Seifert; Christian Wetterauer
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-04

10.  Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Yasuyo Urase; Yoshiko Ueno; Tsutomu Tamada; Keitaro Sofue; Satoru Takahashi; Nobuyuki Hinata; Kenichi Harada; Masato Fujisawa; Takamichi Murakami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.