4.6 Article

Assessment of DCE Utility for PCa Diagnosis Using PI-RADS v2.1: Effects on Diagnostic Accuracy and Reproducibility

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10030164

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer; mpMRI; PI-RADS; DCE; reproducibility; ROC analysis

Funding

  1. Ricerca Corrente Grant from Italian Ministry of Health (IRCCS SDN)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI (DCE-MRI) for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring is a controversial topic. In this retrospective study, we aimed to measure the added value of DCE-MRI in combination with T2-weighted (T2W) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) using PI-RADS v2.1, in terms of reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy, for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (CS-PCa, for Gleason Score >= 7). 117 lesions in 111 patients were identified as suspicion by multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and addressed for biopsy. Three experienced readers independently assessed PI-RADS score, first using biparametric MRI (bpMRI, including DWI and T2W), and then multiparametric MRI (also including DCE). The inter-rater and inter-method agreement (bpMRI- vs. mpMRI-based scores) were assessed by Cohen's kappa (kappa). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy for PCa and CS-PCa detection among the two scores. Inter-rater agreement was excellent for the three pairs of readers (kappa >= 0.83), while the inter-method agreement was good (kappa >= 0.73). Areas under the ROC curve (AUC) showed similar high-values (0.8 <= AUC <= 0.85). The reproducibility of PI-RADS v2.1 scoring was comparable and high among readers, without relevant differences, depending on the MRI protocol used. The inclusion of DCE did not influence the diagnostic accuracy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available