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

doi:10.3892/ol.2018.9038

The diagnostic value of PI‑RADS V1 and V2 using multiparametric MRI in transition zone prostate clinical cancer

Authors:
- Ximing Wang
- Jie Bao
- Xiaoxia Ping
- Chunhong Hu
- Jianquan Hou
- Fenglin Dong
- Lingchuan Guo
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215006, P.R. China, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215006, P.R. China, Department of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215006, P.R. China, Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215006, P.R. China
Published online on: June 28, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.9038
Pages: 3201-3206

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of using the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI‑RADS) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in the transitional zone (TZ) by 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and to compare the diagnostic performance of PI‑RADS V1 to V2 for the detection of PCa in the TZ. A total of 77 patients with suspicious lesions in the prostate TZ (83 cores) identified from mpMRI images acquired at 3T were scored per the PI‑RADS system (V1 and V2) criteria. Magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion‑guided biopsy was performed in patients with at least one lesion classified as category ≥3 in the PI‑RADS V1 assessment. The diagnostic performance of PI‑RADS V1 for the detection of PCa in the TZ was compared with PI‑RADS V2 by assessing the sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics. A total of 31 cases of PCa in the TZ and 46 cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia were confirmed by pathology, including 23 cases classified as Gleason score ≥7 and 54 cases of negative results and Gleason score 6. PI‑RADS V2 exhibited a higher area under the curve (AUC, 0.888) compared with V1 (AUC, 0.869). The sensitivity of V2 (75.0%) was higher compared with that of V1 (68.8%), whereas the specificity of V2 (90.2%) was lower compared with that of V1 (96.1%) at PI‑RADS scores of 11 and 4, respectively. The ESUR PI‑RADS system may indicate the likelihood of PCa in suspicious lesions in the TZ on mpMRI. These results suggest that PI‑RADS V2 performs better compared with V1 for the assessment of PCa in the TZ.

View Figures

View References

1	Jung SI, Donati OF, Vargas HA, Goldman D, Hricak H and Akin O: Transition zone prostate cancer: Incremental value of diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology. 269:493–503. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Kruecker J, Benjamin CJ, Xu S, Yan P, Kadoury S, Chua C, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 186:1281–1285. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Curtis R, Butler WM, Adamovich E and Wallner KE: Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 13:71–77. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V and Fütterer JJ: European Society of Urogenital Radiology: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 22:746–757. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Hassanzadeh E, Glazer DI, Dunne RM, Fennessy FM, Harisinghani MG and Tempany CM: Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2): A pictorial review. Abdom Radiol (NY). 42:278–289. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, Tichy D, Kopp-Schneider A, Fenchel M, Schlemmer HP and Hadaschik BA: Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol. 24:344–352. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, Guettler FV, Abubrig M, Grimm MO, Teichgraeber U and Franiel T: Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 85:726–731. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, et al: PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 69:16–40. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Bouyé S, Potiron E, Puech P, Leroy X, Lemaitre L and Villers A: Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: Zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate. 69:105–113. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Röthke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP and Franiel T: PI-RADS classification: Structured reporting for MRI of the prostate. Rofo. 185:253–261. 2013.(In German). PubMed/NCBI
11	Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, Pinker-Domenig K, Georg D, Shariat SF, Aulitzky W, Susani M and Baltzer PA: Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur J Radiol. 85:1125–1131. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT, Cho NH, Choi YD, Rha KH, Hong SJ and Han K: Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology. 280:108–116. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Lawrence EM, Tang SY, Barrett T, Koo B, Goldman DA, Warren AY, Axell RG, Doble A, Gallagher FA, Gnanapragasam VJ, et al: Prostate cancer: Performance characteristics of combined T₂W and DW-MRI scoring in the setting of template transperineal re-biopsy using MR-TRUS fusion. Eur Radiol. 24:1497–1505. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Rastinehad AR, Waingankar N, Turkbey B, Yaskiv O, Sonstegard AM, Fakhoury M, Olsson CA, Siegel DN, Choyke PL, Ben-Levi E and Villani R: Comparison of multiparametric MRI scoring systems and the impact on cancer detection in patients undergoing MR US fusion guided prostate biopsies. PLoS One. 10:e01434042015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, Schlemmer HP and Schilling D: MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: Analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol. 30:213–218. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B, Glossop N, Singh AK, Choyke P, Pinto P and Wood BJ: Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg. 13:255–264. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI