Literature DB >> 32045072

Direct Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Experience.

Jieun Byun1, Kye Jin Park2, Mi-Hyun Kim2, Jeong Kon Kim2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There appears to be less agreement in the identification of cancers in the transition zone (TZ), which is not as reliable as those in peripheral zone when using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2). In response to such shortcomings, the updated version 2.1 was introduced, which incorporated diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) into category 2 and clarified lexicons.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance for the detection of clinically significant TZ prostate cancers (csPCa) and interreader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and v2. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective study. POPULATION: In all, 142 patients, 201 TZ lesions. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0T; T2 -weighted image and DWI. ASSESSMENT: Lesions were scored by three independent readers using PI-RADS v2 and v2.1. STATISTICAL TESTS: The sensitivity and specificity at category ≥3 were compared between v2 and v2.1 using the generalized estimating equation model. Detection rates for csPCa of upgraded and downgraded lesions in the use of PI-RADS v2.1 from v2 were assessed. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics.
RESULTS: PI-RADS v2.1 showed a higher sensitivity and specificity (94.5% and 60.9%) than v2 (91.8% and 56.3%) for category ≥3 lesions in the detection of csPCa, although not significantly. Of eight upgraded lesions from category 2 to 3 (2 + 1) with an incorporated DWI, 50% (4/8) were csPCa. This was significantly higher than category 2 lesions (4.4%; P = 0.003). No csPCa was detected among the 22.8% (46/201) downgraded lesions. There was a moderate interreader agreement for scores ≥3 (κ = 0.565) in v2.1, which was slightly higher than that for v2 (κ = 0.534), although not significantly. DATA
CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2.1 provides moderate and comparable interreader agreement at category ≥3 than v2 in the TZ lesions. Upgraded lesions from category 2 to 3 demonstrated a higher detection rate of csPCa than category 2 lesions in v2.1. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:577-586.
© 2020 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  magnetic resonance imaging; prostate; prostatic neoplasm

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32045072     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27080

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  16 in total

1.  Editorial on "Head-to-Head Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer".

Authors:  Julie Y An; Kathryn J Fowler
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 2.  Diffusion and quantification of diffusion of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Yoshiko Ueno; Tsutomu Tamada; Keitaro Sofue; Takamichi Murakami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-09-19       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Yasuyo Urase; Yoshiko Ueno; Tsutomu Tamada; Keitaro Sofue; Satoru Takahashi; Nobuyuki Hinata; Kenichi Harada; Masato Fujisawa; Takamichi Murakami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance between Version 2.0 and 2.1 for Prostatic Peripheral Zone.

Authors:  Hyun Soo Kim; Ghee Young Kwon; Min Je Kim; Sung Yoon Park
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 3.500

5.  Comparison of diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chau Hung Lee; Balamurugan Vellayappan; Cher Heng Tan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  PI-RADS v2.1 Combined With Prostate-Specific Antigen Density for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Peripheral Zone.

Authors:  Jing Wen; Tingting Tang; Yugang Ji; Yilan Zhang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 5.738

7.  Use of Radiomics to Improve Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS v2.1 in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Mou Li; Ling Yang; Yufeng Yue; Jingxu Xu; Chencui Huang; Bin Song
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Correlation between Intraprostatic PSMA Uptake and MRI PI-RADS of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2.0 and PI-RADS Version 2.1.

Authors:  Jing Zhao; Dilyana B Mangarova; Julia Brangsch; Avan Kader; Bernd Hamm; Winfried Brenner; Marcus R Makowski
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  A nomogram based on PI-RADS v2.1 and clinical indicators for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer in the transition zone.

Authors:  Chaogang Wei; Peng Pan; Tong Chen; Yueyue Zhang; Guangcheng Dai; Jian Tu; Zhen Jiang; Wenlu Zhao; Junkang Shen
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

Review 10.  [PI-RADS 2.1 and structured reporting of magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate].

Authors:  Andreas Hötker; Olivio F Donati
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 0.635

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.