PI-RADS version 2: quantitative analysis aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer
To determine whether apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratio aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for prostate cancer (PCa).
Seventy-six consecutive patients with PCa who underwent DWI and surgery were included. Based on pathologic tumour location, two readers independently performed DWI scoring according to the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2). ADC ratios of benign to cancerous prostatic tissue were then measured independently and compared between cases showing concordant and discordant DWI scores ≥4. Area under the curve (AUC) and threshold of ADC ratio were analyzed for DWI scores ≥4.
The rate of inter-reader disagreement for DWI score ≥4 was 11.8% (9/76). ADC ratios were higher in concordant vs. discordant DWI scores ≥4 (median, 1.7 vs. 1.1–1.2; p < 0.001). For DWI scores ≥4, the AUCs of ADC ratios were 0.970 for reader 1 and 0.959 for reader 2. In patients with an ADC ratio >1.3, the rate of inter-reader disagreement for DWI score ≥4 decreased to 5.9–6.0%. An ADC ratio >1.3 yielded 100% (reader 1, 54/54; reader 2, 51/51) positive predictive value for clinically significant cancer.
ADC ratios may be useful for reliable interpretation of DWI score ≥4 in PI-RADSv2.
• The ADC ratio correlated positively with DWI score of PI-RADSv2.
• ADC ratio >1.3 was associated with concordant interpretation of DWI score ≥4.
• ADC ratio >1.3 was associated with high PPV for clinically significant cancer.
• ADC ratio is useful for reliable interpretation of DWI scoring in PI-RADSv2.
KeywordsPI-RADS Diffusion-weighted imaging Apparent diffusion coefficient MRI Prostate cancer
Apparent diffusion coefficient
Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2
Clinically significant cancer
Seminal vesicle invasion
Region of interest
Area under the curve
Positive predictive value
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Young Taik Oh. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, cross sectional study, performed at one institution.
- 2.Kayat Bittencourt L, Litjens G, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Turkbey B, Gasparetto EL, Barentsz JO (2015) Prostate cancer: the european society of urogenital radiology prostate imaging reporting and data system criteria for predicting extraprostatic extension by using 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 276:479–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Vargas HA, Hotker 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 26:1606–1612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.American Collage of Radiology. PI-RADS v2. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PIRADS. Accessed August 2016
- 17.Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between Apparent Diffusion Coefficients at 3.0-T MR Imaging and Gleason Grade in Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer. Radiology. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.091409