Diagnostic Value Analysis of PI-RADS v2.1 Combined with ADC Values in the Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer Gleason Scores: A Retrospective Study

被引:1
作者
Wang, Wuhua [1 ]
Zhu, Mingzhe [1 ]
Luo, Zhijian [2 ]
Li, Feng [2 ]
Wan, Chenghao [2 ]
Zhu, Long [2 ]
机构
[1] Nanchang Univ, Med Imaging Dept, Fuzhou Med Coll, Fuzhou 344000, Jiangxi, Peoples R China
[2] First Peoples Hosp Fuzhou, Med Imaging Dept, Fuzhou 344100, Jiangxi, Peoples R China
来源
ARCHIVOS ESPANOLES DE UROLOGIA | 2024年 / 77卷 / 08期
关键词
PI-RADS v2.1; apparent diffusion coefficient; prostate cancer; Gleason score; MRI;
D O I
10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247708.125
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
Background: Prostate cancer is a remarkable global health concern, necessitating accurate risk stratification for optimal treatment and outcome prediction. By highlighting the potential of imaging-based approaches to improve risk assessment in prostate cancer, this research aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 combined with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values to gain increased context within the broad landscape of clinical needs and advancements in prostate cancer management. Methods: The clinical data of 145 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into low-moderate- and high-risk groups on the basis of Gleason scores. PI-RADS v2.1 scores were assessed by senior radiologists and ADC values were calculated by using diffusion-weighted imaging. Statistical, univariate logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were employed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of each index and combined PI-RADS v2.1 scores and ADC values. Results: This study found significant differences in PI-RADS v2.1 scores and ADC values between the low-moderate- and high-risk groups (p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed associations of various clinical indicators, PI-RADS score and ADC values with Gleason risk classification. Amongst indices, mean ADC demonstrated the highest sensitivity (0.912) and area under curve (AUC) value (0.962) and the combination of PI-RADS v2.1 with mean ADC showed high predictive value for the Gleason risk grading of prostate cancer with a high AUC value (0.966). Conclusions: This study provides valuable evidence for the potential utility of imaging-based approaches, specifically PI-RADS v2.1 combined with ADC values, in enhancing the accuracy of risk stratification in prostate cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:889 / 896
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   MR Imaging-Guided Prostate Cancer Therapies [J].
Adamo, Daniel A. ;
Greenwood, Bernadette Marie ;
Ghanouni, Pejman ;
Arora, Sandeep .
RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2024, 62 (01) :121-133
[2]   Correlation between ADC, ADC ratio, and Gleason Grade group in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Retrospective multicenter study with different MRI scanners [J].
Bengtsson, Johan ;
Thimansson, Erik ;
Baubeta, Erik ;
Zackrisson, Sophia ;
Sundgren, Pia Charlotte ;
Bjartell, Anders ;
Flondell-Site, Despina .
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
[3]   SBRT for the primary treatment of localized prostate cancer: the effect of Gleason score, dose and heterogeneity of intermediate risk on outcome utilizing 2.2014 NCCN risk stratification guidelines [J].
Bernetich, Matthew ;
Oliai, Caspian ;
Lanciano, Rachelle ;
Hanlon, Alexandra ;
Lamond, John ;
Arrigo, Stephen ;
Yang, Jun ;
Good, Michael ;
Feng, Jing ;
Brown, Royce ;
Garber, Bruce ;
Mooreville, Michael ;
Brady, Luther W. .
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2014, 4
[4]   Preclinical Models of Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer [J].
Cacciatore, Alessia ;
Albino, Domenico ;
Catapano, Carlo V. ;
Carbone, Giuseppina M. .
CURRENT PROTOCOLS, 2023, 3 (05)
[5]   PI-RADS 3 score: A retrospective experience of clinically significant prostate cancer detection [J].
Camacho, Andres ;
Salah, Fatima ;
Bay, Camden P. ;
Waring, Jonathan ;
Umeton, Renato ;
Hirsch, Michelle S. ;
Cole, Alexander P. ;
Kibel, Adam S. ;
Loda, Massimo ;
Tempany, Clare M. ;
Fennessy, Fiona M. .
BJUI COMPASS, 2023, 4 (04) :473-481
[6]   Impact of changing PI-RADS cutoff on prostate cancer detection by MRI cognitive fusion biopsy in biopsy-naive patients [J].
El-Helaly, Hesham Abdel-Azim ;
Mahmoud, Asem Abdel-Aziz ;
Magdy, Ahmed Mohamed ;
Hasehem, Abdelwahab ;
Ibrahim, Hamdy Mohamed ;
Mohamed, Khaled Moheyelden ;
Ismail, Mohamed Hamdy .
JOURNAL OF THE EGYPTIAN NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2023, 35 (01)
[7]   Prostate cancer lesion detection, volume quantification and high-grade cancer differentiation using cancer risk maps derived from multiparametric MRI with histopathology as the reference standard [J].
Gibbons, Matthew ;
Simko, Jeffry P. ;
Carroll, Peter R. ;
Noworolski, Susan M. .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2023, 99 :48-57
[8]   Incremental prognostic value of ADC histogram analysis in patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy after radical prostatectomy [J].
He, Kangwen ;
Zhang, Yucong ;
Li, Shichao ;
Yuan, Guanjie ;
Liang, Ping ;
Zhang, Qingpeng ;
Xie, Qingguo ;
Xiao, Peng ;
Li, Heng ;
Meng, Xiaoyan ;
Li, Zhen .
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
[9]   Oligometastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer. Why Radiotherapy? [J].
Los Arcos, Marta Barrado ;
Lopez-Campos, Fernando ;
Valcarcel, Marta Lopez ;
Rubio, Manuel Galdeano ;
de Manzanos, Ignacio Visus Fernandez ;
Duque-Santana, Victor ;
Aparicio, Marian Gomez ;
Martin, Juan Zafra ;
Kishan, Amar U. ;
Achard, Verane ;
Siva, Shankar ;
Counago, Felipe .
CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2023, 21 (03) :E93-E103
[10]   Quantitative ADC: An Additional Tool in the Evaluation of Prostate Cancer? [J].
Lucarelli, Nicola Maria ;
Villanova, Ilaria ;
Maggialetti, Nicola ;
Greco, Sara ;
Tarantino, Francesca ;
Russo, Roberto ;
Trabucco, Senia Maria Rosaria ;
Stabile Ianora, Amato Antonio ;
Scardapane, Arnaldo .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2023, 13 (09)