Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy.

George de Queiroz Rozas, Lucas Scatigno Saad, Homero Jos�� de Farias E Melo, Henrique Armando Azevedo Gabrielle, Jacob Szejnfeld
Author Information
  1. George de Queiroz Rozas: Departamento de Diagn��stico por Imagem, Universidade Federal de S��o Paulo - USP, S��o Paulo, SP, Brasil.
  2. Lucas Scatigno Saad: Departamento de Diagn��stico por Imagem, Universidade Federal de S��o Paulo - USP, S��o Paulo, SP, Brasil.
  3. Homero Jos�� de Farias E Melo: Faculdade de Ci��ncias M��dicas da Santa Casa de S��o Paulo, S��o Paulo, SP, Brasil.
  4. Henrique Armando Azevedo Gabrielle: CURA Imagem e Diagn��stico, S��o Paulo, SP, Brasil.
  5. Jacob Szejnfeld: Departamento de Diagn��stico por Imagem, Universidade Federal de S��o Paulo - USP, S��o Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify the group of patients who could safely avoid prostate biopsy based on the findings of multiparametric prostate resonance imaging (MRmp), parameterized with PI-RADS v2, using prostate biopsy as reference test and to assess the sensitivity and specificity of mpMR in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer using prostate biopsy as a reference test.
patients AND METHODS: Three hundred and forty two patients with suspected prostate cancer were evaluated with mpMR and prostate biopsy. Agreement between imaging findings and histopathological findings was assessed using the Kappa index. The accuracy of mpMR in relation to biopsy was assessed by calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).
RESULTS: A total of 342 biopsies were performed. In 201 (61.4%), mpMR had a negative result for cancer, which was confirmed on biopsy in 182 (53%) of the cases, 17 (4.9%) presented non-clinically significant cancer and only 2 (0.5%) clinically significant cancer. 131 (38.3%) patients had a positive biopsy. Clinically significant cancer corresponded to 83 (34.2%), of which 81 (97.5%) had a positive result in mpMR. Considering only the clinically significant cancers the mpMR had a sensitivity of 97.6%, specificity of 76.8%, PPV 57.4% and VPN of 99%.
CONCLUSIONS: mpMR is a useful tool to safely identify which patients at risk for prostate cancer need to undergo biopsy and has high sensitivity and specificity in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer.

Keywords

References

  1. Eur Urol. 2013 Sep;64(3):448-55 [PMID: 23751135]
  2. Radiographics. 1995 Jul;15(4):813-29; discussion 829-32 [PMID: 7569131]
  3. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 Jan;38(1):59-85, viii [PMID: 10664667]
  4. Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822 [PMID: 28110982]
  5. Int J Urol. 2006 May;13(5):555-9 [PMID: 16771725]
  6. Radiology. 2016 Jul;280(1):108-16 [PMID: 26836049]
  7. Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57 [PMID: 22322308]
  8. J Urol. 2015 Apr;193(4):1178-84 [PMID: 25444971]
  9. Eur Urol. 2015 Dec;68(6):1045-53 [PMID: 25656808]
  10. Eur J Radiol. 2007 Sep;63(3):328-34 [PMID: 17689908]
  11. Radiology. 2010 Apr;255(1):89-99 [PMID: 20308447]
  12. Int Braz J Urol. 2016 Nov-Dec;42(6):1081-1090 [PMID: 27622278]
  13. Radiology. 2011 Jun;259(3):775-84 [PMID: 21436085]
  14. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 20;27(21):3459-64 [PMID: 19433685]
  15. Urol Oncol. 2007 Sep-Oct;25(5):376-82 [PMID: 17826653]
  16. BJU Int. 2014 May;113(5):741-7 [PMID: 23937660]
  17. Curr Opin Urol. 2015 Nov;25(6):536-42 [PMID: 26383038]
  18. BJU Int. 2009 Jun;103(12):1647-54 [PMID: 19154461]
  19. Radiology. 2011 May;259(2):453-61 [PMID: 21502392]
  20. Acad Radiol. 2001 Feb;8(2):149-57 [PMID: 11227643]
  21. Radiology. 2014 May;271(2):435-44 [PMID: 24484061]
  22. Radiology. 2016 Jul;280(1):117-27 [PMID: 26859255]
  23. Urology. 2008 Jul;72(1):177-82 [PMID: 18279938]
  24. J Urol. 2014 Jul;192(1):67-74 [PMID: 24518762]
  25. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep;29(9):1228-42 [PMID: 16096414]
  26. BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1089-92 [PMID: 16675820]
  27. Radiol Clin North Am. 1994 Jan;32(1):81-98 [PMID: 8284363]
  28. Radiology. 2011 Oct;261(1):46-66 [PMID: 21931141]
  29. Radiology. 2013 Jul;268(1):144-52 [PMID: 23468576]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Grading
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Reference Standards
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Sensitivity and Specificity

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0prostatebiopsycancermpMRsignificantpatientssensitivityspecificityclinicallyfindingsusingpositiveidentifysafelyimagingPI-RADSv2referencetestidentifyingassessedpredictivevaluePPVnegative4%result5%97OBJECTIVES:groupavoidbasedmultiparametricresonanceMRmpparameterizedassessPATIENTSANDMETHODS:ThreehundredfortytwosuspectedevaluatedAgreementhistopathologicalKappaindexaccuracyrelationcalculationsNPVRESULTS:total342biopsiesperformed20161confirmed18253%cases1749%presentednon-clinically20131383%Clinicallycorresponded83342%81Consideringcancers6%768%57VPN99%CONCLUSIONS:usefultoolriskneedundergohighImpactindicationBiopsyMagneticResonanceImagingProstate

Similar Articles

Cited By (7)