Literature DB >> 29189042

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

Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya1, Harbir S Sidhu1,2, Nikolaos Dikaios1, Edward W Johnston1,2, Lucy Am Simmons3, Alex Freeman4, Alexander Ps Kirkham2, Hashim U Ahmed3, Shonit Punwani1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether indeterminate (Likert-score 3/5) peripheral zone (PZ) multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) studies are classifiable by prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System version 2 (PI-RADS_v2) rescoring and morphological MRI features.
METHODS: Men with maximum Likert-score 3/5 within their PZ were retrospectively selected from 330 patients who prospectively underwent prostate mpMRI (3 T) without an endorectal coil, followed by 20-zone transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies +/- focal lesion-targeted biopsy. PSAD was calculated using pre-biopsy PSA and MRI-derived volume. Two readers A and B independently assessed included men with both Likert-assessment and PI-RADS_v2. Both readers then classified mpMRI morphological features in consensus. Men were divided into two groups: significant cancer (≥ Gleason 3 + 4) or insignificant cancer (≤ Gleason 3 + 3)/no cancer. Comparisons between groups were made separately for PSA & PSAD using Mann-Whitney test and morphological descriptors with Fisher's exact test. PI-RADS_v2 and Likert-assessment were descriptively compared and percentage inter-reader agreement calculated.
RESULTS: 76 males were eligible for PSA & PSAD analyses, 71 for PI-RADS scoring, and 67 for morphological assessment (excluding significant image artefacts). Unlike PSA (p = 0.915), PSAD was statistically different (p = 0.004) between the significant [median: 0.19 ng ml-2 (interquartile range: 0.13-0.29)] and non-significant/no cancer [median: 0.13 ng ml-2 (interquartile range: 0.10-0.17)] groups. Presence of mpMRI morphological features was not significantly different between groups. Subjective Likert-assessment discriminated patients with significant cancer better than PI-RADS_v2. Inter-reader percentage agreement was 83% for subjective Likert-assessment and 56% for PI-RADS_v2.
CONCLUSION: PSAD may categorize presence of significant cancer in patients with Likert-scored 3/5 PZ mpMRI findings. Advances in knowledge: PSAD may be used in indeterminate PZ mpMRI to guide decisions between biopsy vs monitoring.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29189042      PMCID: PMC5965471          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170645

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  39 in total

1.  NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer.

Authors:  James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 11.908

2.  Likert score 3 prostate lesions: Association between whole-lesion ADC metrics and pathologic findings at MRI/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Xiaosong Meng; Justin M Ream; James S Babb; Fang-Ming Deng; Henry Rusinek; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  The Value of PSA Density in Combination with PI-RADS™ for the Accuracy of Prostate Cancer Prediction.

Authors:  Florian A Distler; Jan P Radtke; David Bonekamp; Claudia Kesch; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Kathrin Wieczorek; Marietta Kirchner; Sascha Pahernik; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 7.450

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

Authors:  Raphaëlle Renard-Penna; Pierre Mozer; François Cornud; Nicolas Barry-Delongchamps; Eric Bruguière; Daniel Portalez; Bernard Malavaud
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-01-19       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging.

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

6.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients.

Authors:  Satoshi Washino; Tomohisa Okochi; Kimitoshi Saito; Tsuzumi Konishi; Masaru Hirai; Yutaka Kobayashi; Tomoaki Miyagawa
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Eric JohnBull; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Zone-specific logistic regression models improve classification of prostate cancer on multi-parametric MRI.

Authors:  Nikolaos Dikaios; Jokha Alkalbani; Mohamed Abd-Alazeez; Harbir Singh Sidhu; Alex Kirkham; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton; Alex Freeman; Steve Halligan; Stuart Taylor; David Atkinson; Shonit Punwani
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  7 in total

1.  Evaluating the performance of clinical and radiological data in predicting prostate cancer in prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 category 3 lesions of the peripheral and the transition zones.

Authors:  Caterina Gaudiano; Lorenzo Bianchi; Beniamino Corcioni; Francesca Giunchi; Riccardo Schiavina; Federica Ciccarese; Lorenzo Braccischi; Arianna Rustici; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Eugenio Brunocilla; Rita Golfieri
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  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

3.  Simplified Luminal Water Imaging for the Detection of Prostate Cancer From Multiecho T2 MR Images.

Authors:  William Devine; Francesco Giganti; Edward W Johnston; Harbir S Sidhu; Eleftheria Panagiotaki; Shonit Punwani; Daniel C Alexander; David Atkinson
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Improving the detection rate of prostate cancer in the gray zone of PI-RADS v2 and serum tPSA by using prostate-specific antigen-age volume.

Authors:  Yuan-Fei Lu; Qian Zhang; Hai-Yan Chen; Jie-Yu Chen; Yao Pan; Cong-Cong Xu; Jian-Xia Xu; Ri-Sheng Yu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.817

5.  Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial.

Authors:  Hayley Pye; Saurabh Singh; Joseph M Norris; Lina M Carmona Echeverria; Vasilis Stavrinides; Alistair Grey; Eoin Dinneen; Elly Pilavachi; Joey Clemente; Susan Heavey; Urszula Stopka-Farooqui; Benjamin S Simpson; Elisenda Bonet-Carne; Dominic Patel; Peter Barker; Keith Burling; Nicola Stevens; Tony Ng; Eleftheria Panagiotaki; David Hawkes; Daniel C Alexander; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Aiman Haider; Alex Freeman; Alex Kirkham; David Atkinson; Clare Allen; Greg Shaw; Teresita Beeston; Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Arash Latifoltojar; Edward W Johnston; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani; Hayley C Whitaker
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 6.575

6.  Can machine learning-based analysis of multiparameter MRI and clinical parameters improve the performance of clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis?

Authors:  Tao Peng; JianMing Xiao; Lin Li; BingJie Pu; XiangKe Niu; XiaoHui Zeng; ZongYong Wang; ChaoBang Gao; Ci Li; Lin Chen; Jin Yang
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-10-22       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Multi-parametric MRI zone-specific diagnostic model performance compared with experienced radiologists for detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nikolaos Dikaios; Francesco Giganti; Harbir S Sidhu; Edward W Johnston; Mrishta B Appayya; Lucy Simmons; Alex Freeman; Hashim U Ahmed; David Atkinson; Shonit Punwani
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 5.315

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.