Evaluating the performance of PI-RADS v2 in the non-academic setting
- 362 Downloads
To evaluate the utility of PI-RADS v2 to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer (CS-PCa) with magnetic resonance ultrasound (MR/US) fusion-guided prostate biopsies in the non-academic setting.
Retrospective analysis of men whom underwent prostate multiparametric MRI and subsequent MR/US fusion biopsies at a single non-academic center from 11/2014 to 3/2016. Prostate MRIs were performed on a 3-Tesla scanner with a surface body coil. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 scoring algorithm was utilized and MR/US fusion biopsies were performed in selected cases. Mixed effect logistic regression analyses and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed on PI-RADS v2 alone and combined with PSA density (PSAD) to predict CS-PCa.
170 patients underwent prostate MRI with 282 PI-RADS lesions. MR/US fusion diagnosed 71 CS-PCa, 33 Gleason score 3+3, and 168 negative. PI-RADS v2 score is a statistically significant predictor of CS-PCa (P < 0.001). For each one-point increase in the overall PI-RADS v2 score, the odds of having CS-PCa increases by 4.2 (95% CI 2.2–8.3). The area under the ROC curve for PI-RADS v2 is 0.69 (95% CI 0.63–0.76) and for PI-RADS v2 + PSAD is 0.76 (95% CI 0.69–0.82), statistically higher than PI-RADS v2 alone (P < 0.001). The rate of CS-PCa was about twice higher in men with high PSAD (≥0.15) compared to men with low PSAD (<0.15) when a PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesion was detected (P = 0.005).
PI-RADS v2 is a strong predictor of CS-PCa in the non-academic setting and can be further strengthened when utilized with PSA density.
KeywordsComputed tomography Angiography Aortic aneurysm EVAR Imaging
Compliance with ethical standards
No funding was received for this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
The need for informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
- 1.NCI (2016) SEER Stat Fact Sheets: prostate cancer. Washington, DC National Cancer Institute. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2016
- 2.ACR (2015) MR Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0. Washington, DC American College of Radiology. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PIRADS/. Accessed 8 Oct 2016
- 12.AHA (2016) Fast Facts on Academic Hospitals. Washington, DC American Hospital Association. http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml. Accessed 8 Dec 2016
- 13.AAMC (2016) Key factors about teaching hospitals. Washington, DC American Hospital Association. https://www.aamc.org/download/82452/data/keyfactsaboutth.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec 2016
- 18.Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68(3):438–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, et al. (2016) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26(6):1606–1612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, et al. (2016) Prospective evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534716301999