Lili Xu1, Gumuyang Zhang1, Daming Zhang1, Xiaoxiao Zhang1, Xin Bai1, Weigang Yan2, Yi Zhou2, Zhien Zhou2, Yu Xiao3, Zhengyu Jin4, Hao Sun5. 1. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujing Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. 2. Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujing Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. 3. Department of Pathology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujing Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujing Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. jinzy@pumch.cn. 5. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujing Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. sunhao_robert@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) and PI-RADS v2 for transition zone prostate cancer (TZPC), and analyse its performance for readers with different experience levels. METHODS: Eighty-five patients with suspected prostate cancer who underwent biopsy after MRI scan between January and December 2017 were retrospectively enrolled. One junior radiologist (reader 1, 1 year of experience in using PI-RADS v2) and one senior radiologist (reader 2, 6 years of experience) independently reviewed and assigned a score for each lesion according to PI-RADS v2.1 and v2. The template-guided transperineal prostate biopsy was used for standard of reference. To compare the diagnostic performance of the two methods, the AUC was calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated at predefined positive values (PI-RADS ≥ 3). The interreader agreement and frequency of prostate cancer for each PI-RADS category were also calculated. RESULTS: Among the 85 patients, 27 had prostate cancers, and 25 were clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The AUC values for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer significantly increased with PI-RADS v2.1 for reader 2 (0.766 vs. 0.902, P = 0.009). The specificity and accuracy for both readers also increased with PI-RADS v2.1 (specificity: reader 1, 41.7% vs. 78.3% and reader 2, 33.3% vs. 81.7%; accuracy: reader 1, 52.9% vs. 76.5% and reader 2, 48.2% vs. 83.5%, all P < 0.05). The interreader agreement was good for both versions. The percentage of prostate cancer decreased in lower PI-RADS categories (PI-RADS 2) and increased in higher PI-RADS categories (PI-RADS 3 ~ 4). CONCLUSION: Compared with PI-RADS v2, PI-RADS v2.1 may improve radiologists' diagnostic performance for TZPC.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) and PI-RADS v2 for transition zone prostate cancer (TZPC), and analyse its performance for readers with different experience levels. METHODS: Eighty-five patients with suspected prostate cancer who underwent biopsy after MRI scan between January and December 2017 were retrospectively enrolled. One junior radiologist (reader 1, 1 year of experience in using PI-RADS v2) and one senior radiologist (reader 2, 6 years of experience) independently reviewed and assigned a score for each lesion according to PI-RADS v2.1 and v2. The template-guided transperineal prostate biopsy was used for standard of reference. To compare the diagnostic performance of the two methods, the AUC was calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated at predefined positive values (PI-RADS ≥ 3). The interreader agreement and frequency of prostate cancer for each PI-RADS category were also calculated. RESULTS: Among the 85 patients, 27 had prostate cancers, and 25 were clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The AUC values for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer significantly increased with PI-RADS v2.1 for reader 2 (0.766 vs. 0.902, P = 0.009). The specificity and accuracy for both readers also increased with PI-RADS v2.1 (specificity: reader 1, 41.7% vs. 78.3% and reader 2, 33.3% vs. 81.7%; accuracy: reader 1, 52.9% vs. 76.5% and reader 2, 48.2% vs. 83.5%, all P < 0.05). The interreader agreement was good for both versions. The percentage of prostate cancer decreased in lower PI-RADS categories (PI-RADS 2) and increased in higher PI-RADS categories (PI-RADS 3 ~ 4). CONCLUSION: Compared with PI-RADS v2, PI-RADS v2.1 may improve radiologists' diagnostic performance for TZPC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoplasm grading; Prostate imaging reporting and data system; Prostatic neoplasms