Literature DB >> 30032385

Correlation of 3T multiparametric prostate MRI using prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS) version 2 with biopsy as reference standard.

Shobhit Mathur1, Martin E O'Malley2, Sangeet Ghai3, Kartik Jhaveri2, Boraiah Sreeharsha2, Myles Margolis4, Lehang Zhong5, Hassan Maan3, Ants Toi4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To correlate the findings on 3T multiparametric prostate MRI using PIRADS version 2 with prostate biopsy results as the standard of reference.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 134 consecutive treatment naive patients (mean age 64 years, range 41-82 years) underwent MRI-directed prostate biopsy. MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy was used for 77 (77/134 = 57.5%) patients, cognitive fusion for 51 (51/134 = 38.0%) patients, and 6 patients (6/134 = 4.5%) without a target nodule had systematic biopsy only. Out of the 1676 biopsy sites, 237 (237/1676 = 14.1%) were positive on MRI for a PIRADS 3, 4, or 5 nodule. Fifty-eight (58/134, 43.3%) patients had clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The findings on MRI using PIRADS version 2 were correlated with the biopsy results.
RESULTS: The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of PIRADS ≥ 3 for csPCa were 89%, 76.5%, 89.7%, 31.7%, and 98.4%, respectively. The detection rates of csPCa for PIRADS 3, 4, and 5 nodules were 6.1% (4/66), 33.3% (42/126), and 64.4% (29/45), respectively. MRI did not identify a nodule in 23/1676 (1.4%) biopsy sites that contained csPCa. The MRI reader, biopsy operator, method of fusion biopsy, and zonal location of prostate nodule did not significantly affect the odds of having a biopsy result positive for csPCa.
CONCLUSION: PIRADS ≥ 3 had high specificity and high negative predictive value for csPCa using biopsy results as the standard of reference. The presence of csPCa from a biopsy site was highly unlikely in the absence of a corresponding PIRADS ≥ 3 nodule.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PI-RADS; Prostate MRI; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30032385     DOI: 10.1007/s00261-018-1696-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)


  3 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of prostate cancer: promise and caution.

Authors:  Douglas C Cheung; Antonio Finelli
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Predictive model containing PI-RADS v2 score for postoperative seminal vesicle invasion among prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Hao Wang; Mingjian Ruan; He Wang; Xueying Li; Xuege Hu; Hua Liu; Binyi Zhou; Gang Song
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-02

3.  Comparison of MRI/US Fusion Targeted Biopsy and Systematic Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Prostate Patients with Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen: A Diagnostic Study.

Authors:  Chen Huang; Yuhua Huang; Jinxian Pu; Qilin Xi; Xuedong Wei; Feng Qiu; Ximing Wang; Xiaojun Zhao; Linchuan Guo; Jianquan Hou
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 3.989

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.