Marcia Oliveira Moraes1, Diego H H Roman1, Josenel Copetti1, Francisco de S Santos1, Alexandre Agra1, Jorge A P Noronha1, Gustavo Carvalhal1, Eurico J Dornelles Neto1, Matheus Zanon2,3,4, Matteo Baldisserotto5, Bruno Hochhegger1,6,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Pontificia Universidade Católica Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Av. Ipiranga, 6681, Porto Alegre, 90619900, Brazil. 2. Department of Radiology, Pontificia Universidade Católica Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Av. Ipiranga, 6681, Porto Alegre, 90619900, Brazil. mhgzanon@hotmail.com. 3. Medical Imaging Research Lab, LABIMED, Department of Radiology, Pavilhão Pereira Filho Hospital, Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Porto Alegre, Av. Independência, 75, Porto Alegre, 90020-160, Brazil. mhgzanon@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Diagnostic Methods, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, R. Sarmento Leite, 245, Porto Alegre, 90050170, Brazil. mhgzanon@hotmail.com. 5. Department of Diagnostic Methods, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, R. Sarmento Leite, 245, Porto Alegre, 90050170, Brazil. 6. Medical Imaging Research Lab, LABIMED, Department of Radiology, Pavilhão Pereira Filho Hospital, Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Porto Alegre, Av. Independência, 75, Porto Alegre, 90020-160, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the addition of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) data into the diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) scoring system to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa). METHODS: We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who underwent prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and histopathological evaluation. Mp-MRI images were reported by the PI-RADSv2 scoring system and patients were divided into groups considering the likelihood of CSPCa. ADC value and ratio were obtained. Findings were correlated with histopathological data. RESULTS: CSPCa was found in 41.8% of cases (n = 38). PI-RADSv2 score 3-5 yielded a sensitivity of 97.4% (95% confidence intervals 86.5-99.5), a specificity of 50.9% (37.9-63.9), and AUC of 0.74 (0.67-0.81) to predict CSPCa. ADC value < 750 µm2/s and an ADC ratio < 0.62 were the most accurate thresholds for differentiation of CSPCa, with AUC of 0.81 and 0.76, respectively. Combined PI-RADSv2 score 3-5 and ADC value < 750 µm2/s yielded a specificity of 84.9 (72.9-92.2), sensitivity of 70.3 (54.2-82.5), and AUC of 0.77 (0.68-0.86). Combined PI-RADSv2 score 3-5 and ADC ratio < 0.62 yielded a specificity of 86.5 (74.7-93.3), sensitivity of was 64.9 (48.8-78.2), and AUC of 0.75 (0.66-0.84). CONCLUSION: Quantitative ADC data might not be beneficial to be used routinely in mp-MR imaging as criteria to detect clinically significant lesions due to the reduced sensitivity. Instead, when prostate lesions present a PI-RADSv2 score ≥ 3, additional quantitative ADC criteria can be helpful to increase the PI-RADS score specificity.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the addition of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) data into the diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) scoring system to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa). METHODS: We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who underwent prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and histopathological evaluation. Mp-MRI images were reported by the PI-RADSv2 scoring system and patients were divided into groups considering the likelihood of CSPCa. ADC value and ratio were obtained. Findings were correlated with histopathological data. RESULTS: CSPCa was found in 41.8% of cases (n = 38). PI-RADSv2 score 3-5 yielded a sensitivity of 97.4% (95% confidence intervals 86.5-99.5), a specificity of 50.9% (37.9-63.9), and AUC of 0.74 (0.67-0.81) to predict CSPCa. ADC value < 750 µm2/s and an ADC ratio < 0.62 were the most accurate thresholds for differentiation of CSPCa, with AUC of 0.81 and 0.76, respectively. Combined PI-RADSv2 score 3-5 and ADC value < 750 µm2/s yielded a specificity of 84.9 (72.9-92.2), sensitivity of 70.3 (54.2-82.5), and AUC of 0.77 (0.68-0.86). Combined PI-RADSv2 score 3-5 and ADC ratio < 0.62 yielded a specificity of 86.5 (74.7-93.3), sensitivity of was 64.9 (48.8-78.2), and AUC of 0.75 (0.66-0.84). CONCLUSION: Quantitative ADC data might not be beneficial to be used routinely in mp-MR imaging as criteria to detect clinically significant lesions due to the reduced sensitivity. Instead, when prostate lesions present a PI-RADSv2 score ≥ 3, additional quantitative ADC criteria can be helpful to increase the PI-RADS score specificity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2; Prostate cancer
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