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
[41]   Are magnetic resonance imaging undetectable prostate tumours clinically significant? Results of histopathological analyses [J].
Stensland, Kristian D. ;
Coutinho, Karl ;
Hobbs, Adele R. ;
Haines, Lindsay ;
Collingwood, Shemille A. ;
Kwon, Young Suk ;
Hall, Simon J. ;
Katsigeorgis, Maria ;
Jazayeri, Seyed Behzad ;
Samadi, David B. .
ARAB JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 14 (04) :256-261
[42]   The Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) in the Detection, Evaluation, and Surveillance of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) [J].
Patel, Parth ;
Wang, Shu ;
Siddiqui, Mohummad Minhaj .
CURRENT UROLOGY REPORTS, 2019, 20 (10)
[43]   Clinical and prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings as predictors of general and clinically significant prostate cancer risk: A retrospective single-center study [J].
Massanova, Matteo ;
Vere, Rebecca ;
Robertson, Sophie ;
Crocetto, Felice ;
Barone, Biagio ;
Dutto, Lorenzo ;
Ahmad, Imran ;
Underwood, Mark ;
Salmond, Jonathan ;
Patel, Amit ;
Celentano, Giuseppe ;
Bhatt, Jaimin R. .
CURRENT UROLOGY, 2023, 17 (03) :147-152
[44]   MultiParametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Nomogram for Predicting Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men Undergoing Repeat Prostate Biopsy [J].
Huang, Cong ;
Song, Gang ;
Wang, He ;
Ji, Guangjie ;
Li, Jie ;
Chen, Yuke ;
Fan, Yu ;
Fang, Dong ;
Xiong, Gengyan ;
Xin, Zhongcheng ;
Zhou, Liqun .
BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 2018
[45]   External validation of novel magnetic resonance imaging-based models for prostate cancer prediction [J].
Puellen, Lukas ;
Radtke, Jan P. ;
Wiesenfarth, Manuel ;
Roobol, Monique J. ;
Verbeek, Jan F. M. ;
Wetter, Axel ;
Guberina, Nika ;
Pandey, Abhishek ;
Huettenbrink, Clemens ;
Tschirdewahn, Stephan ;
Pahernik, Sascha ;
Hadaschik, Boris A. ;
Distler, Florian A. .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 125 (03) :407-416
[46]   Multiparametric transrectal ultrasound for the diagnosis of peripheral zone prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer: novel scoring systems [J].
Chen, Tong ;
Wang, Fei ;
Chen, Hanbing ;
Wang, Meng ;
Liu, Peiqing ;
Liu, Songtao ;
Zhou, Yibin ;
Ma, Qi .
BMC UROLOGY, 2022, 22 (01)
[47]   Multiparametric transrectal ultrasound for the diagnosis of peripheral zone prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer: novel scoring systems [J].
Tong Chen ;
Fei Wang ;
Hanbing Chen ;
Meng Wang ;
Peiqing Liu ;
Songtao Liu ;
Yibin Zhou ;
Qi Ma .
BMC Urology, 22
[48]   A Predictive Model Based on Bi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Parameters for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Korean Population [J].
Noh, Tae Il ;
Hyun, Chang Wa ;
Kang, Ha Eun ;
Jin, Hyun Jung ;
Tae, Jong Hyun ;
Shim, Ji Sung ;
Kang, Sung Gu ;
Sung, Deuk Jae ;
Cheon, Jun ;
Lee, Jeong Gu ;
Kang, Seok Ho .
CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2021, 53 (04) :1148-1155
[49]   The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer [J].
Zhao, Chenglin ;
Gao, Ge ;
Fang, Dong ;
Li, Feiyu ;
Yang, Xuedong ;
Wang, He ;
He, Qun ;
Wang, Xiaoying .
CLINICAL IMAGING, 2016, 40 (05) :885-888
[50]   Can the combination of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and PSA-related indicators predict the prostate biopsy outcome? [J].
Zhu, Jun ;
Liang, Zhen ;
Song, Yuxuan ;
Yang, Yongjiao ;
Xu, Yawei ;
Lu, Yi ;
Hu, Rui ;
Ou, Ningjing ;
Zhang, Wei ;
Liu, Xiaoqiang .
ANDROLOGIA, 2020, 52 (10)