Comparisons of three scoring systems based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer

被引:0
作者
Li, Wei [1 ]
Xu, Haibing [1 ]
Shang, Wenwen [1 ]
Hong, Guohui [1 ]
机构
[1] Jiangsu Vocat Coll Med, Dept Med Imaging, Yancheng, Peoples R China
关键词
bpMRI; Diagnosis; Prostate cancer; PI-RADS; Scoring; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; MRI;
D O I
10.1016/j.prnil.2024.08.002
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: In this study, we aimed to validate and compare three scoring systems based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy-na & iuml;ve patients. Method: In this study, we included patients who underwent MRI examinations between January 2018 and December 2022, with MRI-targeted fusion biopsy (MRGB) as the reference standard. The MRI findings were categorized using three bpMRI-based scorings, in all of them the diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was the dominant sequence for peripheral zone (PZ) and T2-weighed imaging (T2WI) was the dominant sequence for transition zone (TZ). We also used the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version (PI-RADS) v2.1 to evaluate each lesion. For each scoring, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC). Results: The calculated AUC for three bpMRI-based scorings were 83.2% (95% CI 78.8%-87.6%), 85.0% (95% CI 80.8%-89.3%), 82.9% (95% CI 78.4%-87.5%), and 86.0% (95% CI 81.8%-90.1%), respectively. Scoring 2 exhibited significantly superior performance than scoring 1 (P = 0.01) and scoring 3 (P < 0.001). Moreover, the accuracy of scoring 2 was not decreased significantly as compared to PI-RADS v2.1 (P = 0.05). There was no significant difference between 3 bpMRI-based scorings and with PI-RADS in TZ. However, although scoring 2 yielded the highest AUC, it was still notably inferior to PI-RADS (P = 0.02). Conclusion: All three bpMRI-based scorings demonstrated favorite diagnostic accuracy, and scoring 2 performed significantly better than the other two bpMRI-based scorings. Notably, scoring 2 was not significantly inferior to the full-sequence PI-RADS v2.1 in terms of sensitivity and specificity.
引用
收藏
页码:201 / 206
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
[21]   Lesion volume on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a non-invasive prognosticator for clinically significant prostate cancer [J].
Choudhary, Manish Kumar ;
Kolanukuduru, Kaushik P. ;
Tillu, Neeraja ;
Kotb, Ahmed ;
Dovey, Zachary ;
Buscarini, Maurizio ;
Zaytoun, Osama .
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2024, 77 (04) :592-598
[22]   Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: an Updated Systematic Review [J].
Haider, M. A. ;
Brown, J. ;
Yao, X. ;
Chin, J. ;
Perlis, N. ;
Schieda, N. ;
Loblaw, A. .
CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 33 (12) :E599-E612
[23]   A magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy [J].
Castellani, Daniele ;
Cecchini, Sara ;
Mazzucchelli, Roberta ;
Soraci, Luca ;
Di Rosa, Mirko ;
Fabbietti, Paolo ;
Palagonia, Erika ;
Puccio, Francesca ;
Carnevali, Francesca ;
Paci, Enrico ;
Montironi, Rodolfo ;
Galosi, Andrea Benedetto .
UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2022, 40 (08) :379.e1-379.e8
[24]   The effect of capped biparametric magnetic resonance imaging slots on weekly prostate cancer imaging workload [J].
Sushentsev, Nikita ;
Caglic, Iztok ;
Sala, Evis ;
Shaida, Nadeem ;
Slough, Rhys A. ;
Carmo, Bruno ;
Kozlov, Vasily ;
Gnanapragasam, Vincent J. ;
Barrett, Tristan .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2020, 93 (1108)
[25]   Magnetic resonance imaging radiomics-based prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer in equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions in the transitional zone [J].
Zhao, Ying-Ying ;
Xiong, Mei-Lian ;
Liu, Yue-Feng ;
Duan, Li-Juan ;
Chen, Jia-Li ;
Xing, Zhen ;
Lin, Yan-Shun ;
Chen, Tan-Hui .
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
[26]   Diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer after negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging [J].
Zattoni, Fabio ;
Morlacco, Alessandro ;
Soligo, Matteo ;
Mancini, Mariangela ;
Leone, Nicolo ;
Zecchini, Giovanni ;
Reitano, Giuseppe ;
Bednarova, Iliana ;
Lacognata, Carmelo Salvino ;
Lauro, Alberto ;
Zanovello, Nicola ;
Novara, Giacomo ;
dal Moro, Fabrizio .
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 75 (03) :277-283
[27]   Prediction of high-risk prostate cancer based on the habitat features of biparametric magnetic resonance and the omics features of contrast-enhanced ultrasound [J].
Huang, Fangyi ;
Huang, Qun ;
Liao, Xinhong ;
Gao, Yong .
HELIYON, 2024, 10 (18)
[28]   Texture analysis of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating clinically significant prostate cancer in the peripheral zone [J].
Ozer, Halil ;
Koplay, Mustafa ;
Baytok, Ahmet ;
Seher, Nusret ;
Demir, Lutfi Saltuk ;
Kilincer, Abidin ;
Kaynar, Mehmet ;
Goktas, Serdar .
TURKISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 53 (03) :701-711
[29]   Comparison of Rotterdam and Barcelona Magnetic Resonance Imaging Risk Calculators for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer [J].
Morote, Juan ;
Borque-Fernando, Angel ;
Triquell, Marina ;
Campistol, Miriam ;
Servian, Pol ;
Abascal, Jose M. ;
Planas, Jacques ;
Mendez, Olga ;
Esteban, Luis M. ;
Trilla, Enrique .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY OPEN SCIENCE, 2023, 53 :46-54
[30]   Is It PRIME Time for Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis? [J].
Ng, Alexander ;
Khetrapal, Pramit ;
Kasivisvanathan, Veeru .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2022, 82 (01) :1-2