Li-Zhi Lei1, Yi-Kai Xu, Mei-Rong Hou, Meng-Qi He. 1. Medical Imaging Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China. E-mail: 631071248@qq.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System: Version 2 (PI-RADS v2) combined with prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the diagnosis of peripheral zone (PZ) prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: The preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and PSA data were ananlyzed for 69 patients with pathologically confirmed PCa and 109 non-PCa patients. PI-RADS v2 scores (1-5) was used to evaluate the risk of PZ PCa. The total PSA (tPSA) level, free to total PSA ratio (f/t PSA), PSA density (PSAD), PZ-PSAD and PI-RADS v2 scores were compared between the PCa and non-PCa patients. Logistic regression models were established with parameters that differed significantly the two groups. The receiver opearting characteristics (ROC) curve was constructed based on the P values derived from the logical regression models and PI-RADS scores to assess the diagnostic efficiency. RESULTS: PI-RADS v2 score, tPSA, f/t PSA, PSAD and PZ-PSAD differed significantly between the two groups (P<0.01). Four predictive multivariate models were established: Logit P=-6.825+1.024PI-RADS v2+ 0.223tPSA (A), Logit P=-4.354+1.586PI-RADS v2-12.7841f/tPSA (B), Logit P=-8.993+1.630PI-RADS v2+17.091PSAD (C), and Logit P=-9.434+1.596PI-RADS v2+10.494PZ-PSAD (D), whose area under the ROC curves was 0.908, 0.891, 0.944, and 0.961, respectively, all significantly greater than that of PI-RADS v2 score (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with PI-RADS v2 score alone, the combination of PI-RADS v2 score and PSA in the logistic regression model can improve the diagnostic efficiency of PZ PCa and offers better confidence in the decision of biopsy in suspected cases.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System: Version 2 (PI-RADS v2) combined with prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the diagnosis of peripheral zone (PZ) prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: The preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and PSA data were ananlyzed for 69 patients with pathologically confirmed PCa and 109 non-PCa patients. PI-RADS v2 scores (1-5) was used to evaluate the risk of PZ PCa. The total PSA (tPSA) level, free to total PSA ratio (f/t PSA), PSA density (PSAD), PZ-PSAD and PI-RADS v2 scores were compared between the PCa and non-PCa patients. Logistic regression models were established with parameters that differed significantly the two groups. The receiver opearting characteristics (ROC) curve was constructed based on the P values derived from the logical regression models and PI-RADS scores to assess the diagnostic efficiency. RESULTS: PI-RADS v2 score, tPSA, f/t PSA, PSAD and PZ-PSAD differed significantly between the two groups (P<0.01). Four predictive multivariate models were established: Logit P=-6.825+1.024PI-RADS v2+ 0.223tPSA (A), Logit P=-4.354+1.586PI-RADS v2-12.7841f/tPSA (B), Logit P=-8.993+1.630PI-RADS v2+17.091PSAD (C), and Logit P=-9.434+1.596PI-RADS v2+10.494PZ-PSAD (D), whose area under the ROC curves was 0.908, 0.891, 0.944, and 0.961, respectively, all significantly greater than that of PI-RADS v2 score (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with PI-RADS v2 score alone, the combination of PI-RADS v2 score and PSA in the logistic regression model can improve the diagnostic efficiency of PZ PCa and offers better confidence in the decision of biopsy in suspected cases.
Authors: Andrei S Purysko; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jelle O Barentsz; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: Radiographics Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Srinivas Vourganti; Baris Turkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; Jeffrey W Nix; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: H A Vargas; A M Hötker; D A Goldman; C S Moskowitz; T Gondo; K Matsumoto; B Ehdaie; S Woo; S W Fine; V E Reuter; E Sala; H Hricak Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael Meier-Schroers; Guido Kukuk; Karsten Wolter; Georges Decker; Stefan Fischer; Christian Marx; Frank Traeber; Alois Martin Sprinkart; Wolfgang Block; Hans Heinz Schild; Winfried Willinek Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: W J Catalona; P C Southwick; K M Slawin; A W Partin; M K Brawer; R C Flanigan; A Patel; J P Richie; P C Walsh; P T Scardino; P H Lange; G H Gasior; K G Loveland; K R Bray Journal: Urology Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Lorenzo Mannelli; Xiangtian Kong; Ben E Niver; Douglas S Berkman; James S Babb; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.813
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
Authors: Richard Ho; Mohummad M Siddiqui; Arvin K George; Thomas Frye; Amichai Kilchevsky; Michele Fascelli; Nabeel A Shakir; Raju Chelluri; Steven F Abboud; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Sandeep Sankineni; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 3.240