Daniel Junker1,2, Fabian Steinkohl3, Veronika Fritz4, Jasmin Bektic5, Theodoros Tokas6,4, Friedrich Aigner3, Thomas R W Herrmann6,7, Michael Rieger8, Udo Nagele6,4. 1. Department of Radiology, Community Hospital Hall in Tirol, Milser Straße 10, 6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria. daniel.junker@tirol-kliniken.at. 2. Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group, Hall in Tirol, Austria. daniel.junker@tirol-kliniken.at. 3. Department of Radiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 4. Department of Urology, Community Hospital Hall in Tirol, Hall in Tirol, Austria. 5. Department of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 6. Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group, Hall in Tirol, Austria. 7. Department of Urology, Klinik für Urologie, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland. 8. Department of Radiology, Community Hospital Hall in Tirol, Milser Straße 10, 6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate, if and how omitting gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) influences diagnostic accuracy and tumor detection rates of prostate MRI. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 236 patients were included. The results of biparametric (bpMRI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) were compared using the PI-RADS version 2 scoring system. The distribution of lesions to PIRADS score levels, tumor detection rates, diagnostic accuracy and RoC analysis were calculated and compared to the results of histopathological analysis or 5-year follow-up for benign findings. RESULTS: Omitting DCE changed PI-RADS scores in 9.75% of patients, increasing the number of PI-RADS 3 scores by 8.89% when compared to mpMRI. No change of more than one score level was observed. BpMRI did not show significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates. (AuC of 0.914 vs 0.917 in ROC analysis). Of 135 prostate carcinomas (PCa), 94.07% were scored identically, and 5.93% were downgraded only from PI-RADS 4 to PI-RADS 3 by bpMRI. All of them were low-grade PCa with Gleason Score 6 or 7a. No changes were observed for PCa ≥ 7b. CONCLUSION: Omitting DCE did not lead to significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates when using the PI-RADS 2 scoring system. According to these data, it seems reasonable to use a biparametric approach for initial routine prostate MRI. This could decrease examination time and reduce costs without significantly lowering the diagnostic accuracy.
PURPOSE: To investigate, if and how omitting gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) influences diagnostic accuracy and tumor detection rates of prostate MRI. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 236 patients were included. The results of biparametric (bpMRI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) were compared using the PI-RADS version 2 scoring system. The distribution of lesions to PIRADS score levels, tumor detection rates, diagnostic accuracy and RoC analysis were calculated and compared to the results of histopathological analysis or 5-year follow-up for benign findings. RESULTS: Omitting DCE changed PI-RADS scores in 9.75% of patients, increasing the number of PI-RADS 3 scores by 8.89% when compared to mpMRI. No change of more than one score level was observed. BpMRI did not show significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates. (AuC of 0.914 vs 0.917 in ROC analysis). Of 135 prostate carcinomas (PCa), 94.07% were scored identically, and 5.93% were downgraded only from PI-RADS 4 to PI-RADS 3 by bpMRI. All of them were low-grade PCa with Gleason Score 6 or 7a. No changes were observed for PCa ≥ 7b. CONCLUSION: Omitting DCE did not lead to significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates when using the PI-RADS 2 scoring system. According to these data, it seems reasonable to use a biparametric approach for initial routine prostate MRI. This could decrease examination time and reduce costs without significantly lowering the diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Nicolas Barry Delongchamps; Mathieu Rouanne; Thierry Flam; Frédéric Beuvon; Mathieu Liberatore; Marc Zerbib; François Cornud Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alison D Sheridan; Sameer K Nath; Jamil S Syed; Sanjay Aneja; Preston C Sprenkle; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Michael Spektor Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Thomas Auer; Michael Edlinger; Jasmin Bektic; Udo Nagele; Thomas Herrmann; Georg Schäfer; Friedrich Aigner; Daniel Junker Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: E J Bass; A Pantovic; M Connor; R Gabe; A R Padhani; A Rockall; H Sokhi; H Tam; M Winkler; H U Ahmed Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-03-17
Authors: Seung Soo Lee; Dong Hoon Lee; Won Hoon Song; Jong Kil Nam; Ji Yeon Han; Hyun Jung Lee; Tae Un Kim; Sung Woo Park Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 5.400