| Literature DB >> 35935910 |
Amr Nowier1, Hesham Mazhar1, Rasha Salah2, Mohamed Shabayek1.
Abstract
Background: Use of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring system allowed more precise detection of prostate cancer (PCa). Our study aimed at evaluating the diagnostic performance of mp-MRI in detection of PCa.Entities:
Keywords: PI-RADS; Prostate cancer; TRUS guided prostate biopsy; multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging
Year: 2022 PMID: 35935910 PMCID: PMC9354643 DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2022.2067615
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arab J Urol ISSN: 2090-598X
Basic Characteristics of studied population.
| n = 86 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age | Mean ±SD | 63.07 ± 7.28 |
| Range | 49–79 | |
| DRE | NAD | 40 (46.5%) |
| Firm | 33 (38.4%) | |
| Hard | 13 (15.1%) | |
| PSA | Mean ±SD | 10.07 ± 4.62 |
| Range | 3.5–34 | |
| PSA density | Mean ±SD | 0.19 ± 0.09 |
| Range | 0.05–0.69 | |
| Prostate volume | Mean ±SD | 55.37 ± 16.51 |
| Range | 26–105 | |
SD: standard deviation, DRE: digital rectal examination, NAD: no abnormality detected, PSA: prostate specific antigen.
Correlation between PIRADS score & ISUP grade results in all studied lesions.
| Mp-MRI | < 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Agreement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISUP grade(GS) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | Kappa | P value |
| Benign | 535 (96.6) | 40(62.5) | 16(26.7) | 0 | 0.345 | <0.001 |
| 1 (3 + 3) | 7 (1.3) | 12 (18.8) | 9 (15) | 0 | ||
| 2 (3 + 4) | 9 (1.6) | 8 (12.5) | 17(28.3) | 0 | ||
| 3 (3 + 5, 4 + 4, 5 + 3) | 2 (0.4) | 2(3.1) | 4(6.7) | 1 (10) | ||
| 4 (4 + 5, 5 + 4) | 1 (0.2) | 2 (3.1) | 14(23.3) | 9 (90) | ||
| 5 (5 + 5) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Total (n = 688) | 554 (80.5%) | 64 (9.3%) | 60 (8.7%) | 10 (1.5%) | ||
TRUS: transrectal ultrasound, ISUP: international society of urological pathology, mp-MRI: multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, PIRADS: prostate imaging-reporting and data system score, GS:Gleason score
Correlation between PI-RADS score >3 lesions on mp-MRI and results of TRUS Biopsy.
| PI-RADS | TRUS Bx | Total | Agreement | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive | Kappa | p value | ||
| Negative (≤3) | 34 (85%) | 14 (30.43%) | 48 (55.81%) | 0.539 | <0.001 |
| Positive (>3) | 6 (15%) | 32 (69.57%) | 38 (44.19%) | ||
| Total | 40 (100%) | 46 (100%) | 86 (100%) | ||
TRUS: transrectal ultrasound, mp-MRI: multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, PIRADS: prostate imaging-reporting and data system score.
Figure 1.Diagnostic performance of PIRADS score ˃ 3 versus PIRADS score ≥3 on mp-MRI and detection of prostate cancer.
Correlation between PI-RADS ≥3 on mp-MRI and results of TRUS Biopsy.
| PI-RADS | TRUS Bx | Total | Agreement | |||
| | | Negative | Positive | | Kappa | p value |
| Negative (<3) | 13 (32.5%) | 1 (2.17%) | 14 (16.28%) | 0.317 | <0.001 | |
| Positive (≥3) | 27 (67.5%) | 45 (97.83%) | 72 (83.72%) | |||
| Total | 40 (100%) | 46 (100%) | 86 (100%) | |||
TRUS: transrectal ultrasound, mp-MRI: multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, PIRADS: prostate imaging-reporting and data system score.