Comparison of PI-RADS 2, ADC histogram-derived parameters, and their combination for the diagnosis of peripheral zone prostate cancer

被引:18
作者
Lin, W. C. [1 ,2 ]
Westphalen, A. C. [1 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Silva, G. E. [6 ]
Chodraui Filho, S. [7 ]
Reis, R. B. [8 ]
Muglia, V. F. [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] China Med Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Shenyang, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Biomed Imaging, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Urol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[6] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Pathol, Ribeirao Preto Sch Med, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[7] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Internal Med, Ribeirao Preto Sch Med, Div Radiol, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[8] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Surg, Ribeirao Preto Sch Med, Div Urol, Sao Paulo, Brazil
关键词
Prostate cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion-weighted imaging; APPARENT DIFFUSION-COEFFICIENT; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; AGGRESSIVENESS ASSESSMENT; QUANTITATIVE-ANALYSIS; MR-IMAGES; ANTIGEN; BIOPSY;
D O I
10.1007/s00261-016-0826-4
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
The purpose of this study was to compare the PI-RADS V2 scores, ADC histogram-derived parameters, and their combination for the diagnosis of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer (PCa). The IRB approved this retrospective study of 47 men who underwent 1.5 Tesla endorectal prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Informed consent was waived. Two readers identified and scored MRI lesions using PI-RADS V2. Their mean, median, 10th, 25th, 75th percentile ADC values, and normalized ratio were also calculated. Multilevel logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses assessed their diagnostic performance. Clinically significant PCa was defined as tumor volume over 0.5 cc and Gleason grade of 4 or 5 on prostatectomy. The area under the ROC curve (A (z)) of the overall and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) PI-RADS V2 scores were 0.69 and 0.84 (reader-1), and 0.68 and 0.73 (reader-2). The A (z) of ADC parameters ranged from 0.68 to 0.75 for both readers. Compared to other predictors, DWI PI-RADS V2 yielded the highest A (z) for identification of significant cancer; but, except for reader-1 75th percentile ADC, the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Adding ADC parameters to PI-RADS V2 scores did not improve their diagnostic ability. DWI PI-RADS V2 score may a better predictor of clinically significant PCa than the overall PI-RADS V2 score, but its diagnostic performance was not significantly improved by the addition of objective ADC value measurements.
引用
收藏
页码:2209 / 2217
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] PI-RADS version 2: quantitative analysis aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer
    Sung Yoon Park
    Su-Jin Shin
    Dae Chul Jung
    Nam Hoon Cho
    Young Deuk Choi
    Koon Ho Rha
    Sung Joon Hong
    Young Taik Oh
    European Radiology, 2017, 27 : 2776 - 2783
  • [22] Editorial on "Head-to-Head Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer"
    An, Julie Y.
    Fowler, Kathryn J.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2020, 52 (02) : 587 - 588
  • [23] Comparison of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient parameters with prostate imaging reporting and data system V2 assessment for detection of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer
    Hassanzadeh, Elmira
    Alessandrino, Francesco
    Olubiyi, Olutayo I.
    Glazer, Daniel I.
    Mulkern, Robert V.
    Fedorov, Andriy
    Tempany, Clare M.
    Fennessy, Fiona M.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (05) : 1237 - 1244
  • [24] Genomic Prostate Score, PI-RADS™ version 2 and Progression in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance
    Kornberg, Zachary
    Cowan, Janet E.
    Westphalen, Antonio C.
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    Chan, June M.
    Zhao, Shoujun
    Shinohara, Katsuto
    Carroll, Peter R.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 201 (02) : 300 - 306
  • [25] Likert vs PI-RADS v2: a comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Khoo, Christopher C.
    Eldred-Evans, David
    Peters, Max
    Tanaka, Mariana Bertoncelli
    Noureldin, Mohamed
    Miah, Saiful
    Shah, Taimur
    Connor, Martin J.
    Reddy, Deepika
    Clark, Martin
    Lakhani, Amish
    Rockall, Andrea
    Hosking-Jervis, Feargus
    Cullen, Emma
    Arya, Manit
    Hrouda, David
    Qazi, Hasan
    Winkler, Mathias
    Tam, Henry
    Ahmed, Hashim U.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 125 (01) : 49 - 55
  • [26] Considering Predictive Factors in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PI-RADS 3 Lesions
    Natale, Caleb
    Koller, Christopher R.
    Greenberg, Jacob W.
    Pincus, Joshua
    Krane, Louis S.
    LIFE-BASEL, 2021, 11 (12):
  • [27] Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Characterization: Combined Use of Radiomics Model with PI-RADS and Clinical Parameters
    Woznicki, Piotr
    Westhoff, Niklas
    Huber, Thomas
    Riffel, Philipp
    Froelich, Matthias F.
    Gresser, Eva
    von Hardenberg, Jost
    Muehlberg, Alexander
    Michel, Maurice Stephan
    Schoenberg, Stefan O.
    Noerenberg, Dominik
    CANCERS, 2020, 12 (07) : 1 - 14
  • [28] Assessment of PI-RADS v2 categories ≥ 3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Nayana U. Patel
    Kimberly E. Lind
    Kavita Garg
    David Crawford
    Priya N. Werahera
    Sajal S. Pokharel
    Abdominal Radiology, 2019, 44 : 705 - 712
  • [29] PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study
    Wang, Zhibing
    Zhao, Wenlu
    Shen, Junkang
    Jiang, Zhen
    Yang, Shuo
    Tan, Shuangxiu
    Zhang, Yueyue
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 45 (12) : 4142 - 4149
  • [30] PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study
    Zhibing Wang
    Wenlu Zhao
    Junkang Shen
    Zhen Jiang
    Shuo Yang
    Shuangxiu Tan
    Yueyue Zhang
    Abdominal Radiology, 2020, 45 : 4142 - 4149