Sonia Gaur1, Stephanie Harmon1,2, Sherif Mehralivand3, Sandra Bednarova1, Brian P Calio3, Dordaneh Sugano3, Abhinav Sidana3, Maria J Merino4, Peter A Pinto3, Bradford J Wood5, Joanna H Shih6, Peter L Choyke1, Baris Turkbey1. 1. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 2. Clinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, 21702. 3. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 5. Center for Interventional Oncology, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 6. Biometric Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v. 2 (PI-RADSv2) provides standardized nomenclature for interpretation of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Inclusion of additional features for categorization may provide benefit to stratification of disease. PURPOSE: To prospectively compare PI-RADSv2 to a qualitative in-house system for detecting prostate cancer on mpMRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: In all, 338 patients who underwent mpMRI May 2015-May 2016, with subsequent MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH: 3T mpMRI (T2 W, diffusion-weighted [DW], apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] map, b-2000 DWI acquisition, and dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] MRI). ASSESSMENT: One genitourinary radiologist prospectively read mpMRIs using both in-house and PI-RADSv2 5-category systems. STATISTICAL TEST: In lesion-based analysis, overall and clinically significant (CS) tumor detection rates (TDR) were calculated for all PI-RADSv2 and in-house categories. The ability of each scoring system to detect cancer was assessed by area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Within each PI-RADSv2 category, lesions were further stratified by their in-house categories to determine if TDRs can be increased by combining features of both systems. RESULTS: In 338 patients (median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 6.5 [0.6-113.6] ng/mL; age 64 [44-84] years), 733 lesions were identified (47% tumor-positive). Predictive abilities of both systems were comparable for all (AUC 76-78%) and CS cancers (AUCs 79%). The in-house system had higher overall and CS TDRs than PI-RADSv2 for categories 3 and 4 (P < 0.01 for both), with the greatest difference between the scoring systems seen in lesions scored category 4 (CS TDRs: in-house 65%, PI-RADSv2 22.1%). For lesions categorized as PI-RADSv2 = 4, characterization of suspicious/indeterminate extraprostatic extension (EPE) and equivocal findings across all mpMRI sequences contributed to significantly different TDRs for both systems (TDR range 19-75%, P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: PI-RADSv2 behaves similarly to an existing validated system that relies on the number of sequences on which a lesion is seen. This prospective evaluation suggests that sequence positivity and suspicion of EPE can enhance PI-RADSv2 category 4 cancer detection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1326-1335.
BACKGROUND: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v. 2 (PI-RADSv2) provides standardized nomenclature for interpretation of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Inclusion of additional features for categorization may provide benefit to stratification of disease. PURPOSE: To prospectively compare PI-RADSv2 to a qualitative in-house system for detecting prostate cancer on mpMRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: In all, 338 patients who underwent mpMRI May 2015-May 2016, with subsequent MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH: 3T mpMRI (T2 W, diffusion-weighted [DW], apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] map, b-2000 DWI acquisition, and dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] MRI). ASSESSMENT: One genitourinary radiologist prospectively read mpMRIs using both in-house and PI-RADSv2 5-category systems. STATISTICAL TEST: In lesion-based analysis, overall and clinically significant (CS) tumor detection rates (TDR) were calculated for all PI-RADSv2 and in-house categories. The ability of each scoring system to detect cancer was assessed by area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Within each PI-RADSv2 category, lesions were further stratified by their in-house categories to determine if TDRs can be increased by combining features of both systems. RESULTS: In 338 patients (median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 6.5 [0.6-113.6] ng/mL; age 64 [44-84] years), 733 lesions were identified (47% tumor-positive). Predictive abilities of both systems were comparable for all (AUC 76-78%) and CS cancers (AUCs 79%). The in-house system had higher overall and CS TDRs than PI-RADSv2 for categories 3 and 4 (P < 0.01 for both), with the greatest difference between the scoring systems seen in lesions scored category 4 (CS TDRs: in-house 65%, PI-RADSv2 22.1%). For lesions categorized as PI-RADSv2 = 4, characterization of suspicious/indeterminate extraprostatic extension (EPE) and equivocal findings across all mpMRI sequences contributed to significantly different TDRs for both systems (TDR range 19-75%, P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: PI-RADSv2 behaves similarly to an existing validated system that relies on the number of sequences on which a lesion is seen. This prospective evaluation suggests that sequence positivity and suspicion of EPE can enhance PI-RADSv2 category 4 cancer detection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1326-1335.
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Christopher S Lim; Matthew D F McInnes; Robert S Lim; Rodney H Breau; Trevor A Flood; Satheesh Krishna; Christopher Morash; Wael M Shabana; Nicola Schieda Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Baris Turkbey; Lambros Stamatakis; Jennifer Logan; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Jochen Kruecker; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kareem N Rayn; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Joseph A Baiocco; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vikram K Sabarwal; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jonathan B Bloom; Graham R Hale; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Clayton Smith; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Jelle Barentsz; Geert Villeirs; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Daniel J Margolis; Baris Turkbey; Harriet C Thoeny; François Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Sadhna Verma; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cheyenne Williams; Michael Ahdoot; Michael A Daneshvar; Christian Hague; Andrew R Wilbur; Patrick T Gomella; Joanna Shih; Nabila Khondakar; Nitin Yerram; Sherif Mehralivand; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; Maria Merino; Bradford Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Rachael L Sherrer; Zachary A Glaser; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Kristin K Porter; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Akshay Wadera; Mostafa Alabousi; Alex Pozdnyakov; Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita; Ali Jafri; Matthew Df McInnes; Nicola Schieda; Christian B van der Pol; Jean-Paul Salameh; Lucy Samoilov; Kaela Gusenbauer; Abdullah Alabousi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Michael Ahdoot; Andrew R Wilbur; Sarah E Reese; Amir H Lebastchi; Sherif Mehralivand; Patrick T Gomella; Jonathan Bloom; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 91.245