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
  • [31] Development and internal validation of PI-RADs v2-based model for clinically significant prostate cancer
    Zhang, Yu
    Zeng, Na
    Zhu, Yi Chen
    Huang, Yang Xin Rui
    Guo, Qiang
    Tian, Ye
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 16
  • [32] The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Zhao, Chenglin
    Gao, Ge
    Fang, Dong
    Li, Feiyu
    Yang, Xuedong
    Wang, He
    He, Qun
    Wang, Xiaoying
    [J]. CLINICAL IMAGING, 2016, 40 (05) : 885 - 888
  • [33] Diagnostic Value Analysis of PI-RADS v2.1 Combined with ADC Values in the Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer Gleason Scores: A Retrospective Study
    Wang, Wuhua
    Zhu, Mingzhe
    Luo, Zhijian
    Li, Feng
    Wan, Chenghao
    Zhu, Long
    [J]. ARCHIVOS ESPANOLES DE UROLOGIA, 2024, 77 (08): : 889 - 896
  • [34] Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer
    Gaur, Sonia
    Harmon, Stephanie
    Mehralivand, Sherif
    Bednarova, Sandra
    Calio, Brian P.
    Sugano, Dordaneh
    Sidana, Abhinav
    Merino, Maria J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Shih, Joanna H.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Turkbey, Baris
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2018, 48 (05) : 1326 - 1335
  • [35] Magnetic resonance imaging radiomics-based prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer in equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions in the transitional zone
    Zhao, Ying-Ying
    Xiong, Mei-Lian
    Liu, Yue-Feng
    Duan, Li-Juan
    Chen, Jia-Li
    Xing, Zhen
    Lin, Yan-Shun
    Chen, Tan-Hui
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
  • [36] Efficacy of PI-RADS in prebiopsy prostate-MRI at a urological cancer centre: a comparison with histology
    MD Patel
    B Rangarajan
    [J]. Cancer Imaging, 15 (Suppl 1)
  • [37] Correlation between Intraprostatic PSMA Uptake and MRI PI-RADS of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2.0 and PI-RADS Version 2.1
    Zhao, Jing
    Mangarova, Dilyana B.
    Brangsch, Julia
    Kader, Avan
    Hamm, Bernd
    Brenner, Winfried
    Makowski, Marcus R.
    [J]. CANCERS, 2020, 12 (12) : 1 - 13
  • [38] 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
    Elmira Hassanzadeh
    Francesco Alessandrino
    Olutayo I. Olubiyi
    Daniel I. Glazer
    Robert V. Mulkern
    Andriy Fedorov
    Clare M. Tempany
    Fiona M. Fennessy
    [J]. Abdominal Radiology, 2018, 43 : 1237 - 1244
  • [39] The diagnostic value of PI-RADS V1 and V2 using multiparametric MRI in transition zone prostate clinical cancer
    Wang, Ximing
    Bao, Jie
    Ping, Xiaoxia
    Hu, Chunhong
    Hou, Jianquan
    Dong, Fenglin
    Guo, Lingchuan
    [J]. ONCOLOGY LETTERS, 2018, 16 (03) : 3201 - 3206
  • [40] Predictive role of PI-RADSv2 and ADC parameters in differentiating Gleason pattern 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 prostate cancer
    Francesco Alessandrino
    Mehdi Taghipour
    Elmira Hassanzadeh
    Alireza Ziaei
    Mark Vangel
    Andriy Fedorov
    Clare M. Tempany
    Fiona M. Fennessy
    [J]. Abdominal Radiology, 2019, 44 : 279 - 285