MRI-based analysis of different clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate of prostate imaging reporting and data system score 4 in the peripheral zone
- PMID: 36305943
- DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03712-0
MRI-based analysis of different clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate of prostate imaging reporting and data system score 4 in the peripheral zone
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rate between diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) 4 and DWI 3 with positive dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) (hereinafter called 'DWI 3/DCE+') lesions in the peripheral zone (PZ) and to explore the diagnostic performance of targeted biopsy (TB) or systematic biopsy (SB) in patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 lesions.
Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 206 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and had at least one PI-RADS 4 lesion in the PZ. All patients subsequently underwent combined magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided TB and ultrasound-guided 12-core SB. The chi-square test was used to compare the csPCa detection rates between DWI 4 and DWI 3/DCE+ lesions. Based on the TB + SB results as a standard reference, we analyzed the sensitivity, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of TB alone or SB alone.
Results: Patients with DWI 4 lesions had higher csPCa detection rate than those with DWI 3/DCE+ lesions when using TB + SB, TB, and SB, and the differences were significant for TB + SB (72.22 vs. 54.84%, p = 0.015) or SB (65.97 vs. 46.77%, p = 0.010). For DWI 3/DCE+ patients whose prostate-specific antigen levels ranged from 4 to 10 ng/mL, TB alone showed the highest negative predictive value (95% Cl 78.12-100).
Conclusions: DWI 4 tends to have worse results than DWI 3/DCE+. TB has great diagnostic performances in DWI 3/DCE+ patients, especially for those prostate-specific antigen ranging from 4 to 10 ng/mL.
Keywords: Clinically significant prostate cancer; Dynamic contrast-enhanced; Prostate imaging reporting and data system; Targeted biopsy.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Drost FH, Osses D, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2020;77(1):78-94. - DOI
-
- Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69(1):16-40. - DOI
-
- 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;76(3):340–351.
-
- Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017;72(2):177-188. - DOI
-
- Ullrich T, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al. Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) MR Imaging in Peripheral Lesions in PI-RADS-4 Patients. Rofo 2020;192(5):441-447. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
