Rohith Arcot1, Sitharthan Sekar2, Srinath Kotamarti1, Madison Krischak1, Zoe D Michael1, Wen-Chi Foo3,4, Jiaoti Huang3,4, Thomas J Polascik1,3, Rajan T Gupta5,6,7. 1. Division of Urologic Surgery and Duke Prostate Center, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 2804, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 3. Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, 20 Duke Medicine Circle, DUMC Box 103861, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3712, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 5. Division of Urologic Surgery and Duke Prostate Center, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 2804, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. rajan.gupta@duke.edu. 6. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. rajan.gupta@duke.edu. 7. Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, 20 Duke Medicine Circle, DUMC Box 103861, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. rajan.gupta@duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can identify lesions within the prostate with characteristics identified in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 associated with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) or Gleason grade group (GGG) ≥ 2 at biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To assess concordance (PI-RADS 5 lesions with csPCa) of PI-RADS v2/2.1 with targeted, fusion biopsy results and to examine causes of discordance (PI-RADS 5 lesions without csPCa) with aim to provide a structured approach to resolving discordances and develop quality improvement (QI) protocols. METHODS: A retrospective study of 392 patients who underwent mpMRI at 3 Tesla followed by fusion biopsy. PI-RADS v2/2.1 scores were assigned to lesions identified on mpMRI and compared to biopsy results expressed as GGG. Positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS v2/2.1 was calculated for all prostate cancer and csPCa. Discordant cases were re-reviewed by a radiologist with expertise in prostate mpMRI to determine reason for discordance. RESULTS: A total of 521 lesions were identified on mpMRI. 121/521 (23.2%), 310/524 (59.5%), and 90/521 (17.3%) were PI-RADS 5, 4, and 3, respectively. PPV of PI-RADS 5, 4, and 3 for all PCa and csPCa was 0.80, 0.55, 0.24 and 0.63, 0.33, and 0.09, respectively. 45 cases of discordant biopsy results for PI-RADS 5 lesions were found with 27 deemed "true" discordances or "unresolved" discordances where imaging re-review confirmed PI-RADS appropriateness, while 18 were deemed "false" or resolved discordances due to downgrading of PI-RADS scores based on imaging re-review. Adjusting for resolved discordances on re-review, the PPV of PI-RADS 5 lesions for csPCa was deemed to be 0.74 and upon adjusting for presence of csPCa found in cases of unresolved discordance, PPV rose to 0.83 for PI-RADS 5 lesions. CONCLUSION: Although PIRADS 5 lesions are considered high risk for csPCa, the PPV is not 100% and a diagnostic dilemma occurs when targeted biopsy returns discordant. While PI-RADS score is downgraded in some cases upon imaging re-review, a number of "false" or "unresolved" discordances were identified in which MRI re-review confirmed initial PI-RADS score and subsequent pathology confirmed presence of csPCa in these lesions. CLINICAL IMPACT: We propose a structured approach to resolving discordant biopsy results using multi-disciplinary re-review of imaging and archived biopsy strikes as a quality improvement pathway. Further work is needed to determine the value of re-biopsy in cases of unresolved discordance and to develop robust QI systems for prostate MRI.
BACKGROUND: Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can identify lesions within the prostate with characteristics identified in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 associated with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) or Gleason grade group (GGG) ≥ 2 at biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To assess concordance (PI-RADS 5 lesions with csPCa) of PI-RADS v2/2.1 with targeted, fusion biopsy results and to examine causes of discordance (PI-RADS 5 lesions without csPCa) with aim to provide a structured approach to resolving discordances and develop quality improvement (QI) protocols. METHODS: A retrospective study of 392 patients who underwent mpMRI at 3 Tesla followed by fusion biopsy. PI-RADS v2/2.1 scores were assigned to lesions identified on mpMRI and compared to biopsy results expressed as GGG. Positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS v2/2.1 was calculated for all prostate cancer and csPCa. Discordant cases were re-reviewed by a radiologist with expertise in prostate mpMRI to determine reason for discordance. RESULTS: A total of 521 lesions were identified on mpMRI. 121/521 (23.2%), 310/524 (59.5%), and 90/521 (17.3%) were PI-RADS 5, 4, and 3, respectively. PPV of PI-RADS 5, 4, and 3 for all PCa and csPCa was 0.80, 0.55, 0.24 and 0.63, 0.33, and 0.09, respectively. 45 cases of discordant biopsy results for PI-RADS 5 lesions were found with 27 deemed "true" discordances or "unresolved" discordances where imaging re-review confirmed PI-RADS appropriateness, while 18 were deemed "false" or resolved discordances due to downgrading of PI-RADS scores based on imaging re-review. Adjusting for resolved discordances on re-review, the PPV of PI-RADS 5 lesions for csPCa was deemed to be 0.74 and upon adjusting for presence of csPCa found in cases of unresolved discordance, PPV rose to 0.83 for PI-RADS 5 lesions. CONCLUSION: Although PIRADS 5 lesions are considered high risk for csPCa, the PPV is not 100% and a diagnostic dilemma occurs when targeted biopsy returns discordant. While PI-RADS score is downgraded in some cases upon imaging re-review, a number of "false" or "unresolved" discordances were identified in which MRI re-review confirmed initial PI-RADS score and subsequent pathology confirmed presence of csPCa in these lesions. CLINICAL IMPACT: We propose a structured approach to resolving discordant biopsy results using multi-disciplinary re-review of imaging and archived biopsy strikes as a quality improvement pathway. Further work is needed to determine the value of re-biopsy in cases of unresolved discordance and to develop robust QI systems for prostate MRI.
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Hans Garmo; Kimmo Taari; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Ove Andrén; Gunnar Steineck; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Morgan R Pokorny; Maarten de Rooij; Earl Duncan; Fritz H Schröder; Robert Parkinson; Jelle O Barentsz; Leslie C Thompson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Masoom A Haider; Anwar R Padhani; Geert Villeirs; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Daniel J Margolis; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadhna Verma; Jelle Barentsz; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michael Ahdoot; Andrew R Wilbur; Sarah E Reese; Amir H Lebastchi; Sherif Mehralivand; Patrick T Gomella; Jonathan Bloom; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 91.245