Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer.
Tamada, Tsutomu; Kido, Ayumu; Takeuchi, Mitsuru; Yamamoto, Akira; Miyaji, Yoshiyuki; Kanomata, Naoki; Sone, Teruki.
Afiliação
  • Tamada T; Department of Radiology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Japan. Electronic address: ttamada@med.kawasaki-m.ac.jp.
  • Kido A; Department of Radiology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Japan.
  • Takeuchi M; Department of Radiology, Radiolonet Tokai, Nagoya, Japan.
  • Yamamoto A; Department of Radiology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Japan.
  • Miyaji Y; Department of Urology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Japan.
  • Kanomata N; Department of pathology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Japan.
  • Sone T; Department of Radiology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Japan.
Eur J Radiol ; 121: 108704, 2019 Dec.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31669798
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 and v2.1 for detecting transition zone prostate cancer (TZPC) on multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI).

METHOD:

Fifty-eight patients with elevated PSA levels underwent mpMRI at 3 T including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and subsequent MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided prostate-targeted biopsy (MRGB). The standard of reference was MRGB-derived histopathology. Two readers independently assessed each TZ lesion, assigning a score of 1-5 for T2WI, a score of 1-5 for DWI, and the overall PI-RADS assessment category according to PI-RADS v2 and v2.1. The diagnostic performance of the two methods was compared in terms of inter-reader agreement, diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC).

RESULTS:

Of the 58 patients, 26 were diagnosed with PC (GS = 3 + 3, n = 9; GS = 3 + 4, n = 9; GS = 3 + 5, n = 1; GS = 4 + 3, n = 4; GS = 4 + 4, n = 3) and 32 with benign lesions. Regarding inter-reader agreement of overall PI-RADS assessment category, the kappa value was 0.580 for v2 and 0.645 for v2.1. For both readers, there was no difference in diagnostic sensitivity between the versions (p ≥ 0.500). For reader 1, the diagnostic specificity was higher for v2.1 (p = 0.002), and was similar for reader 2 (p = 1.000). For both readers, AUC tended to be higher for v2.1 than for v2, but the difference was not significant (0.786 vs. 0.847 for reader 1, p = 0.052; and 0.808 vs. 0.858 for reader 2, p = 0.197).

CONCLUSIONS:

These results suggest that compared with PI-RADS v2, PI-RADS v2.1 could be preferable for evaluating TZ lesions.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética / Sistemas de Informação em Radiologia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética / Sistemas de Informação em Radiologia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article