Nayana U Patel1, Kimberly E Lind2,3, Kavita Garg4, David Crawford5, Priya N Werahera6, Sajal S Pokharel4,7. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado SOM, 12401 East 17th Avenue, Mail Stop L954, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. Nayana.patel@ucdenver.edu. 2. Department of Health Systems, Management and Policy, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 3. Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado SOM, 12401 East 17th Avenue, Mail Stop L954, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 5. Department of Urologic Oncology, University of Colorado, Denver, Mail Stop # F 710, PO Box # 6510, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 6. Department of Pathology and Department of Bioengineering, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Mail Stop 8104, P. O. Box 6511, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 7. Diversified Radiology of Colorado, P.C., 1746 Cole Blvd. Suite 150, Lakewood, CO, 80401, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS v2 categories ≥ 3 to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) against histopathology of Transperineal Mapping Biopsy (TPMB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB-approved retrospective cohort study included 47 men who had 3.0 T multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and TPMB of prostate. Two radiologists independently evaluated T2, DWI, ADC map, and DCE images using PI-RADS v2 categories. A third radiologist served as tie-breaker. PI-RADS v2 score (PS) ≥ 3 lesions were correlated with 3D model of TPMB (3DTPMB) results based on prostate sectors. Two groups of csPCa status were separately analyzed for accuracy measures at lesion and person levels: Group 1 with GS (Gleason Score) ≥ 7 and group 2 with tumor volume ≥ 0.5 cc. Inter-rater reliability for PS and MR lexicon was calculated. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients with 3DTPMB had at least one lesion with PS ≥ 3 on mpMRI. PS of 5 had high PPV and high specificity of 100% at the lesion and person levels. Sensitivity of a PS ≥ 3 was 68.27% for group 1 and was 48.39% for group 2. Specificity was 93.56% for group 1 and was 95.53% for group 2. At the person level, sensitivity of PS ≥ 3 was 81.25% for group 1 and was 82.35% for group 2. Specificity was 32.26% for group 1 and was 53.85% for group 2. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 category of 5 had high PPV and specificity; however, combined PS ≥ 3 had mixed performance in detection of csPCa.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS v2 categories ≥ 3 to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) against histopathology of Transperineal Mapping Biopsy (TPMB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB-approved retrospective cohort study included 47 men who had 3.0 T multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and TPMB of prostate. Two radiologists independently evaluated T2, DWI, ADC map, and DCE images using PI-RADS v2 categories. A third radiologist served as tie-breaker. PI-RADS v2 score (PS) ≥ 3 lesions were correlated with 3D model of TPMB (3DTPMB) results based on prostate sectors. Two groups of csPCa status were separately analyzed for accuracy measures at lesion and person levels: Group 1 with GS (Gleason Score) ≥ 7 and group 2 with tumor volume ≥ 0.5 cc. Inter-rater reliability for PS and MR lexicon was calculated. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients with 3DTPMB had at least one lesion with PS ≥ 3 on mpMRI. PS of 5 had high PPV and high specificity of 100% at the lesion and person levels. Sensitivity of a PS ≥ 3 was 68.27% for group 1 and was 48.39% for group 2. Specificity was 93.56% for group 1 and was 95.53% for group 2. At the person level, sensitivity of PS ≥ 3 was 81.25% for group 1 and was 82.35% for group 2. Specificity was 32.26% for group 1 and was 53.85% for group 2. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 category of 5 had high PPV and specificity; however, combined PS ≥ 3 had mixed performance in detection of csPCa.
Authors: Antonio C Westphalen; Charles E McCulloch; Jordan M Anaokar; Sandeep Arora; Nimrod S Barashi; Jelle O Barentsz; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Michael T Booker; Vaughn G Braxton; Peter R Carroll; David D Casalino; Silvia D Chang; Fergus V Coakley; Ravjot Dhatt; Steven C Eberhardt; Bryan R Foster; Adam T Froemming; Jurgen J Fütterer; Dhakshina M Ganeshan; Mark R Gertner; Lori Mankowski Gettle; Sangeet Ghai; Rajan T Gupta; Michael E Hahn; Roozbeh Houshyar; Candice Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Chandana Lall; Daniel J A Margolis; Stephen E McRae; Aytekin Oto; Rosaleen B Parsons; Nayana U Patel; Peter A Pinto; Thomas J Polascik; Benjamin Spilseth; Juliana B Starcevich; Varaha S Tammisetti; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey; Sadhna Verma; John F Ward; Christopher A Warlick; Andrew R Weinberger; Jinxing Yu; Ronald J Zagoria; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Teodora Telecan; Iulia Andras; Nicolae Crisan; Lorin Giurgiu; Emanuel Darius Căta; Cosmin Caraiani; Andrei Lebovici; Bianca Boca; Zoltan Balint; Laura Diosan; Monica Lupsor-Platon Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-06-16
Authors: Adam Kinnaird; Wayne Brisbane; Lorna Kwan; Alan Priester; Ryan Chuang; Danielle E Barsa; Merdie Delfin; Anthony Sisk; Daniel Margolis; Ely Felker; Jim Hu; Leonard S Marks Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 2.052