Prostate cancer in PI-RADS scores 1 and 2 version 2.1: a comparison to previous PI-RADS versions
- PMID: 35312821
- DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03444-1
Prostate cancer in PI-RADS scores 1 and 2 version 2.1: a comparison to previous PI-RADS versions
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the validity of PI-RADS categories 1 and 2 version 2.1 (V2.1) as predictors of the absence of carcinoma and to reevaluate lesions that were analysed as suspicious prior to PI-RADS or according to PI-RADS versions 1 and 2 and classified as PI-RADS 1 or 2 in V2.1.
Methods: Retrospective evaluation of 1170 multiparametric MRIs performed at one academic teaching hospital (2012-2019). Study cohort comprised 188 men that achieved PI-RADS scores 1 or 2 (V2.1) and underwent systematic and targeted biopsy, split into one group with suspect findings in the original reports that were created prior to PI-RADS or with version 1 and 2, and another group with unremarkable reports. Differences in presence of prostate cancer and PSA density were assessed by Chi-square and Fisher's exact test, and the negative predictive value (NPV) for both groups was conducted.
Results: The NPV for clinically significant carcinoma (csCa) was 89.1% for 55 men with suspect findings in the original report and 93.2% for 133 men with negative MRI. There was no difference between the groups regarding the detection of csCa (p = 0.103). PSA density was significantly higher in the group with suspect original reports (p = 0.015).
Conclusion: A PI-RADS score 1 or 2 appears less likely to miss existing prostate cancer, although a small amount of csCa can be overlooked. In case of clinical suspicion or elevated PSA density and PI-RADS score 1 or 2, an individual decision has to be taken if biopsy is necessary or if monitoring is sufficient.
Keywords: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADS scores 1 and 2; PI-RADS versions; Prostatic neoplasms.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Similar articles
-
Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients.BJU Int. 2017 Feb;119(2):225-233. doi: 10.1111/bju.13465. Epub 2016 Apr 1. BJU Int. 2017. PMID: 26935594
-
How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3?Int J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan;25(1):175-186. doi: 10.1007/s10147-019-01524-9. Epub 2019 Aug 31. Int J Clin Oncol. 2020. PMID: 31473884
-
Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer.Eur J Radiol. 2019 Dec;121:108704. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108704. Epub 2019 Oct 17. Eur J Radiol. 2019. PMID: 31669798
-
Who can safely evade a magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy (MRIFTB) for prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) 3 lesion?World J Urol. 2021 May;39(5):1463-1471. doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03352-3. Epub 2020 Jul 21. World J Urol. 2021. PMID: 32696126
-
PI-RADS 3 lesions: a critical review and discussion of how to improve management.Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023 Jul;48(7):2401-2405. doi: 10.1007/s00261-023-03929-7. Epub 2023 May 9. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023. PMID: 37160472 Review.
Cited by
-
Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection and Investigation of Multiparametric MRI-derived Markers.Radiology. 2023 May;307(4):e221309. doi: 10.1148/radiol.221309. Epub 2023 May 2. Radiology. 2023. PMID: 37129493 Free PMC article.
-
Case-by-case combination of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 with the Likert score to reduce the false-positives of prostate MRI: a proof-of-concept study.Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024 Dec;49(12):4273-4285. doi: 10.1007/s00261-024-04506-2. Epub 2024 Jul 30. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024. PMID: 39079991 Free PMC article.
References
-
- German Cancer Society, German Cancer Aid, AWMF (2021) S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom, Langversion 6.0 [S3-guideline Prostate Carcinoma, long version 6.0]. http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/ . Accessed 26 Jun 2021
-
- Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al. (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al. (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al. (2019) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous