The performance of PI-RADSv2 and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting confirmatory prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer
- PMID: 28258355
- PMCID: PMC5537601
- DOI: 10.1007/s00261-017-1086-7
The performance of PI-RADSv2 and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting confirmatory prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the performance of the updated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for predicting confirmatory biopsy results in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer (PCA).
Methods: IRB-approved, retrospective study of 371 consecutive men with clinically low-risk PCA (initial biopsy Gleason score ≤6, prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, clinical stage ≤T2a) who underwent 3T-prostate MRI before confirmatory biopsy. Two independent radiologists recorded the PI-RADSv2 scores and measured the corresponding ADC values in each patient. A composite score was generated to assess the performance of combining PI-RADSv2 + ADC.
Results: PCA was upgraded on confirmatory biopsy in 107/371 (29%) patients. Inter-reader agreement was substantial (PI-RADSv2: k = 0.73; 95% CI [0.66-0.80]; ADC: r = 0.74; 95% CI [0.69-0.79]). Accuracies, sensitivities, specificities, positive predicted value and negative predicted value of PI-RADSv2 were 85, 89, 83, 68, 95 and 78, 82, 76, 58, 91% for ADC. PI-RADSv2 accuracy was significantly higher than that of ADC for predicting biopsy upgrade (p = 0.014). The combined PI-RADSv2 + ADC composite score did not perform better than PI-RADSv2 alone. Obviating biopsy in patients with PI-RADSv2 score ≤3 would have missed Gleason Score upgrade in 12/232 (5%) of patients.
Conclusion: PI-RADSv2 was superior to ADC measurements for predicting PCA upgrading on confirmatory biopsy.
Keywords: Biopsy; Cancer; Confirmatory; PI-RADSv2; Prostate.
Conflict of interest statement
None of the authors declare a conflict of interest.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System versions 1 and 2 for the Detection of Peripheral Zone Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Cancers.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Dec;209(6):W365-W373. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.17964. Epub 2017 Oct 5. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017. PMID: 28981356
-
PI-RADS Version 2: Detection of Clinically Significant Cancer in Patients With Biopsy Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jul;209(1):W1-W9. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16981. Epub 2017 Apr 18. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017. PMID: 28418690
-
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.Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 May;43(5):1237-1244. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1297-y. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018. PMID: 28840280 Free PMC article.
-
Multiparametric MRI in detection and staging of prostate cancer.Dan Med J. 2017 Feb;64(2):B5327. Dan Med J. 2017. PMID: 28157066 Review.
-
A Systematic Review of the Existing Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Literature and Subset Meta-Analysis of PI-RADSv2 Categories Stratified by Gleason Scores.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Apr;212(4):847-854. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20571. Epub 2019 Feb 26. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019. PMID: 30807218
Cited by
-
Reduction of MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance by stratifying to PI-RADS and PSA-density, with different thresholds for significant disease.Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Feb;7(1):132-144. doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.29. Transl Androl Urol. 2018. PMID: 29594027 Free PMC article.
-
Application of Multiple Ultrasonic Techniques in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.Front Oncol. 2022 Jun 27;12:905087. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.905087. eCollection 2022. Front Oncol. 2022. PMID: 35832558 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Calculation of Apparent Diffusion Coefficients in Prostate Cancer Using Deep Learning Algorithms: A Pilot Study.Front Oncol. 2021 Sep 9;11:697721. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.697721. eCollection 2021. Front Oncol. 2021. PMID: 34568027 Free PMC article.
-
Prostate Cancer Imaging and Biomarkers Guiding Safe Selection of Active Surveillance.Front Oncol. 2017 Oct 30;7:256. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00256. eCollection 2017. Front Oncol. 2017. PMID: 29164056 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance-a modern approach.Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Feb;7(1):116-131. doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.23. Transl Androl Urol. 2018. PMID: 29594026 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Wong LM, Alibhai SM, Trottier G, et al. A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression. Eur Urol. 2014;66:406–413. - PubMed
-
- Wong LM, Ferrara S, Alibhai SM, et al. Diagnostic prostate biopsy performed in a non-academic center increases the risk of re-classification at confirmatory biopsy for men considering active surveillance for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18:69–74. - PubMed
-
- Dall’Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62:976–983. - PubMed
-
- Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2795–2800. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous