Literature DB >> 32702998

How does PI-RADS v2.1 impact patient classification? A head-to-head comparison between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1.

Ana Sofia Linhares Moreira1, Pieter De Visschere2, Charles Van Praet3, Geert Villeirs2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: PI-RADS classification has recently been updated, with the magnitude of changes implemented currently unknown.
PURPOSE: To quantify the categorization shifts between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 535 consecutive diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies performed over 18 months, assigning to each case a PI-RADS category in the peripheral zone (PZ), the transition zone (TZ), and the whole gland using both PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1. Significance of changes in category assignments and of differences in the number of positive or negative MRIs were evaluated using the McNemar test.
RESULTS: Comparing v2.0 to v2.1 for the whole gland, 11.2% of PI-RADS 2 categories shifted to PI-RADS 1 (6.9% in the PZ, 56.8% in the TZ), 16.1% of PI-RADS 3 categories shifted to PI-RADS 2 (15.0% in the PZ, 20.0% in the TZ), and 2.1% of PI-RADS 2 categories shifted to PI-RADS 3 (0.3% in the PZ, 1.9% in the TZ). The proportion of PI-RADS 1 significantly increased from 0.6% to 7.3%, PI-RADS 2 significantly decreased from 60.0% to 53.8%, and PI-RADS 3 non-significantly decreased from 11.6% to 11.0%. The total number of positive exams (PI-RADS 3-5) did not change significantly (39.4% versus 38.8%).
CONCLUSION: The most prominent change between v2.0 and v2.1 was observed in the TZ with the downgrading of typical benign prostatic hyperplasia nodules from category 2 into category 1. Overall, there were no significant changes in the number of positive and negative MRI results, with an expected low influence in clinical management.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PI-RADS; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1; Prostate cancer; magnetic resonance imaging

Year:  2020        PMID: 32702998     DOI: 10.1177/0284185120941831

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  5 in total

Review 1.  PI-RADSv2.1: Current status.

Authors:  Stephanie M Walker; Barış Türkbey
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-10-09

2.  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

3.  Fully automated detection and localization of clinically significant prostate cancer on MR images using a cascaded convolutional neural network.

Authors:  Lina Zhu; Ge Gao; Yi Zhu; Chao Han; Xiang Liu; Derun Li; Weipeng Liu; Xiangpeng Wang; Jingyuan Zhang; Xiaodong Zhang; Xiaoying Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 5.738

4.  Considering Predictive Factors in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PI-RADS 3 Lesions.

Authors:  Caleb Natale; Christopher R Koller; Jacob W Greenberg; Joshua Pincus; Louis S Krane
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-19

Review 5.  [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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.