Xiangyu Wang1, Weizong Liu2, Yi Lei1, Guangyao Wu3, Fan Lin4. 1. Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Health Science Center, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, 3002 SunGangXi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China. 2. Department of Ultrasonography, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Health Science Center, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, 3002 SunGangXi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Shenzhen University General Hospital, 1098 XueYuan Road, Shenzhen, 518055, China. wuguangy2002@163.com. 4. Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Health Science Center, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, 3002 SunGangXi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China. foxetfoxet@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and false-positive rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) in prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) category 4 and 5 lesions using PI-RADS v2.1. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-two lesions in 169 subjects with a PI-RADS score of 4 or 5 were included in our study. Lesions with clinically insignificant prostate cancer (CIPC) or benign pathologic findings were reviewed and categorized by a radiologist. The initial comparison of demographic and clinical data was performed by t-test and χ2 test, and then the logistic regression model was used to determine factors associated with CIPC or benign pathological findings. RESULTS: Of the 182 PI-RADS category 4 and 5 lesions, 84.6% (154/182) were prostate cancer (PCa), 73.1% (133/182) were CSPC, and 26.9% (49/182) were CIPC or benign pathologic findings. The false-positive cases included 44.9% (22/49) with inflammation, 42.9% (21/49) with CIPC, 8.2% (4/49) with BPH nodules and 4.1% (2/49) with normal anatomy cases. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with CIPC or benign features included those in both the peripheral zone (PZ) and central gland (CG) (odds ratio [OR] 0.062; p = 0.003) and a low prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) (OR 0.34; p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The integration of clinical information (PSAD and lesion location) into mpMRI to identify lesions helps with obtaining a clinically significant diagnosis and decision-making.
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and false-positive rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) in prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) category 4 and 5 lesions using PI-RADS v2.1. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-two lesions in 169 subjects with a PI-RADS score of 4 or 5 were included in our study. Lesions with clinically insignificant prostate cancer (CIPC) or benign pathologic findings were reviewed and categorized by a radiologist. The initial comparison of demographic and clinical data was performed by t-test and χ2 test, and then the logistic regression model was used to determine factors associated with CIPC or benign pathological findings. RESULTS: Of the 182 PI-RADS category 4 and 5 lesions, 84.6% (154/182) were prostate cancer (PCa), 73.1% (133/182) were CSPC, and 26.9% (49/182) were CIPC or benign pathologic findings. The false-positive cases included 44.9% (22/49) with inflammation, 42.9% (21/49) with CIPC, 8.2% (4/49) with BPH nodules and 4.1% (2/49) with normal anatomy cases. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with CIPC or benign features included those in both the peripheral zone (PZ) and central gland (CG) (odds ratio [OR] 0.062; p = 0.003) and a low prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) (OR 0.34; p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The integration of clinical information (PSAD and lesion location) into mpMRI to identify lesions helps with obtaining a clinically significant diagnosis and decision-making.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic imaging; False-positive; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Sandra Bednarova; Joanna H Shih; Francesca V Mertan; Sonia Gaur; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nelly Tan; Wei-Chan Lin; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Nazanin H Asvadi; Jeffrey Yoshida; Daniel J A Margolis; David S K Lu; Holden Wu; Kyung Hyun Sung; David Y Lu; Jaioti Huang; Steven S Raman Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Karim Chamie; Geoffrey A Sonn; David S Finley; Nelly Tan; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Shyam Natarajan; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter Journal: Urology Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.649