Moon Hyung Choi1,2, Chan Kyo Kim3,4, Young Joon Lee1, Seung Eun Jung1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Cancer Research Institute, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. 4 Department of Medical Device Management and Research, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) with respect to prebiopsy MRI with and without dynamic contrast enhancement in the detection of clinically significant cancer (CSC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 113 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy and prebiopsy multiparametric 3-T MRI (mpMRI) that included T2-weighted imaging, DWI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) were enrolled in a retrospective study conducted at two institutions. For detecting CSC at prebiopsy mpMRI with DCE-MRI and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) without DCE-MRI, two independent radiologists using PI-RADSv2 scored suspicious lesions in all patients. RESULTS: CSC was identified in 74.3% (84/113) of patients. For CSC detection rate, no statistical differences between bpMRI and mpMRI were found for any PI-RADS score (p > 0.05). For cancer in the peripheral zone, reader 1 upgraded 22 lesions and reader 2 upgraded 13 lesions from PI-RADS score 3 at bpMRI to PI-RADS 4 (3 + 1) at mpMRI. The CSC detection rate of PI-RADS 3 + 1 lesions at mpMRI (reader 1, 63.6%; reader 2, 69.2%) was slightly greater than that of PI-RADS 3 lesions at bpMRI (reader 1, 53.8%; reader 2, 60.0%), which was not statistically different (p > 0.05). Interreader agreement on PI-RADS scoring was moderate for both bpMRI (κ = 0.540) and mpMRI (κ = 0.478). CONCLUSION: For detecting CSC, the diagnostic performance of prebiopsy bpMRI without DCE-MRI is similar to that of mpMRI with DCE-MRI.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) with respect to prebiopsy MRI with and without dynamic contrast enhancement in the detection of clinically significant cancer (CSC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 113 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy and prebiopsy multiparametric 3-T MRI (mpMRI) that included T2-weighted imaging, DWI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) were enrolled in a retrospective study conducted at two institutions. For detecting CSC at prebiopsy mpMRI with DCE-MRI and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) without DCE-MRI, two independent radiologists using PI-RADSv2 scored suspicious lesions in all patients. RESULTS: CSC was identified in 74.3% (84/113) of patients. For CSC detection rate, no statistical differences between bpMRI and mpMRI were found for any PI-RADS score (p > 0.05). For cancer in the peripheral zone, reader 1 upgraded 22 lesions and reader 2 upgraded 13 lesions from PI-RADS score 3 at bpMRI to PI-RADS 4 (3 + 1) at mpMRI. The CSC detection rate of PI-RADS 3 + 1 lesions at mpMRI (reader 1, 63.6%; reader 2, 69.2%) was slightly greater than that of PI-RADS 3 lesions at bpMRI (reader 1, 53.8%; reader 2, 60.0%), which was not statistically different (p > 0.05). Interreader agreement on PI-RADS scoring was moderate for both bpMRI (κ = 0.540) and mpMRI (κ = 0.478). CONCLUSION: For detecting CSC, the diagnostic performance of prebiopsy bpMRI without DCE-MRI is similar to that of mpMRI with DCE-MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
MRI; PI-RADS; diagnosis; multicenter study; prostate cancer
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: 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