4.4 Article

Prebiopsy biparametric MRI: differences of PI-RADS version 2 in patients with different PSA levels

Journal

CLINICAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 73, Issue 9, Pages 810-817

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.05.007

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To validate the diagnostic accuracy of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, Gleason score >= 7) on prebiopsy biparametric MRI (bpMRI) in patients with different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 184 patients who underwent prebiopsy bpMRI followed by transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy between June 2015 and February 2017. Reader 1 performed a combination of systematic and targeted biopsy with cognitive fusion after reviewing bpMRI and reader 2 reviewed the bpMRIs retrospectively. PI-RADS categories 4 and 5 were considered positive, and the results of the biopsy were considered the reference standard. Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS of bpMRI was evaluated in two PSA groups with a PSA cut-off level of 10 ng/ml and compared to PSA and the PSA density using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: csPCa was diagnosed in 24 of 123 patients (19.5%) and 26 of 61 patients (42.6%) in the low and high PSA groups, respectively. A PI-RADS v2 category by either readers 1 or 2 had a significantly better performance to detect csPCa than PSA in both PSA groups. In the high PSA group, only one csPCa was missed by reader 2, but none by reader 1. In the low PSA group, readers 1 and 2 were unable to detect seven and five of the 24 csPCas, respectively. CONCLUSION: Prebiopsy bpMRI has good performance for detecting csPCa in the high PSA group but may miss small-volume csPCa in the low PSA group. (C) 2018 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available