Skip to main content

PI-RADS version 2: quantitative analysis aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer

European Radiology volume 27, pages 2776–2783 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratio aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

ADC ratios may be useful for reliable interpretation of DWI score ≥4 in PI-RADSv2.

Key points

• 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Abbreviations

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

PI-RADSv2:

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

DCE:

Dynamic contrast-enhanced

MR:

Magnetic resonance

TR:

Repetition time

TE:

Echo time

PCa:

Prostate cancer

CSC:

Clinically significant cancer

PZ:

Peripheral zone

TZ:

Transition zone

ECE:

Extracapsular extension

SVI:

Seminal vesicle invasion

ROI:

Region of interest

ROC:

Receiver operating-characteristic

AUC:

Area under the curve

PPV:

Positive predictive value

CI:

confidence interval

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

GS:

Gleason score

References

  1. Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT et al (2016) Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.16151133:151133

    Google Scholar 

  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 276:479–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K et al (2016) Combination of PI-RADS score and PSA density predicts biopsy outcome in biopsy naive patients. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/bju.13465

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Woo S, Kim SY, Lee J, Kim SH, Cho JY (2016) PI-RADS version 2 for prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason Score 7 (3 + 4) prostate cancer.. doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4230-9, Eur Radiol

    Google 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 26:1606–1612

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016152542:152542

    Google Scholar 

  7. Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S et al (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 277:741–750

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S et al (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69:41–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenkrantz AB, Margolis DJ (2016) Commentary regarding the inter-reader reproducibility of PI-RADS version 2. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:907–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sasaki M, Ida M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y, Matsui M (2007) Standardizing display conditions of diffusion-weighted images using concurrent b0 images: a multi-vendor multi-institutional study. Magn Reson Med Sci 6:133–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kivrak AS, Paksoy Y, Erol C, Koplay M, Ozbek S, Kara F (2013) Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient values among different MRI platforms: a multicenter phantom study. Diagn Interv Radiol 19:433–437

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y et al (2008) Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology 249:624–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bhowmik NM, Yu J, Fulcher AS, Turner MA (2016) Benign causes of diffusion restriction foci in the peripheral zone of the prostate: diagnosis and differential diagnosis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:910–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al (2011) The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 60:291–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2011) A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 185:121–125

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

  18. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H et al (2011) Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:374–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YH, Lee HJ, Kim MJ, Choi MS (2014) Low-risk prostate cancer: the accuracy of multiparametric MR imaging for detection. Radiology 271:435–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS (2013) Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W612–W618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Metens T, Miranda D, Absil J, Matos C (2012) What is the optimal b value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T? Eur Radiol 22:703–709

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grant KB, Agarwal HK, Shih JH et al (2015) Comparison of calculated and acquired high b value diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 40:578–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zaytoun OM, Stephenson AJ, Fareed K et al (2012) When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int 110:987–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Republic of Korea

    Sung Yoon Park, Dae Chul Jung & Young Taik Oh

  2. Department of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Su-Jin Shin & Nam Hoon Cho

  3. Department of Pathology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Su-Jin Shin

  4. Department of Urology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Young Deuk Choi, Koon Ho Rha & Sung Joon Hong

Authors
  1. Sung Yoon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Su-Jin Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dae Chul Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nam Hoon Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Young Deuk Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Koon Ho Rha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sung Joon Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Young Taik Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young Taik Oh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, S.Y., Shin, SJ., Jung, D.C. et al. PI-RADS version 2: quantitative analysis aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 27, 2776–2783 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4678-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4678-7

Keywords

  • PI-RADS
  • Diffusion-weighted imaging
  • Apparent diffusion coefficient
  • MRI
  • Prostate cancer