Alptekin TOSUN, Tumay BEKCİ, Erhan DEMİRELLİ, Ural OĞUZ, Demet ŞENGÜL, Ercan ÖĞREDEN

Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1: Single center experience

Aim: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS v2.1 using multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detectprostate cancer (pCa) and comparison with transrectal biopsy/radical prostatectomy results.Material and Methods: Between June 2017 and April 2019, 124 patients who underwent mpMRI prior to transrectal biopsy/ radicalprostatectomy were evaluated by a pathology results-blinded uroradiologist using PI-RADS v2.1 categories, retrospectively. PIRADSv2.1 category results were compared with transrectal biopsy/radical prostatectomy results. All clinical data were used in statisticalanalysis.Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy values of mpMRI using PI-RADSv2.1 categorization were 96%, 44%, 73%, 88% and 75%, respectively. A significant correlation was observed between a high PI-RADSscore and high pathological grade (p

PDF

___

1. Lee CH, Ku JY, Park WY, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) results with the final pathology findings for radical prostatectomy specimens in the detection of prostate cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2019;2:20-7.
2. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 2019;18.
3. Gosein M, Pang E, Chang S, et al. Outcomes of Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy of PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 Lesions. Can Assoc Radiol J 2018;6:303- 10.
4. Patel NU, Lind KE, Garg K, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 categories≥ 3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019;44:705-12.
5. Demirel HC, Davis JW. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Overview of the technique, clinical applications in prostate biopsy and future directions. Turk J Urol 2018;44:93-102
6. Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Interreader Variability of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Detecting and Assessing Prostate Cancer Lesions at Prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019:6;1197-205
7. Liu C, Liu SL, Wang ZX, et al. Using the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RIDS v2) to detect prostate cancer can prevent unnecessary biopsies and invasive treatment. Asian J Androl 2018;20:459-64.
8. Alessandrino F, Taghipour M, Hassanzadeh E, et al. Predictive role of PI-RADSv2 and ADC parameters in differentiating Gleason pattern 3+ 4 and 4+ 3 prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019;44:279-85.
9. Inan I, Aktan A, Ozkanli SS, et al. Comparison of likert and PI-RADS v2 scoring in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Turgut Ozal Med Cen 2018;4:651-5
10. Zhang L, Tang M, Chen S, et al. A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PIRADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2017;27:5204-14.
11. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, et al. Direct comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography-fusion biopsy. BJU Int 2016;118:213-20.
12. Lee S M, Joshi J, Wolfe K, et al. Radiologic presentation of chronic granulomatous prostatitis mimicking locally advanced prostate adenocarcinoma. J Radiol Case Rep 2016;11:78-82.