Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MR imaging of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 in detection of prostate cancer
Background Prostate cancer (PCa) is considered to be the commonest cancer among males. Early and precise diagnosis of PCa is essential for adequate treatment. Multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) is actually the most precise imaging technique used for early diagnosis of PCa. The aim of this work was t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 2021-03, Vol.52 (1), p.68-7, Article 68 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 7 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 68 |
| container_title | Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine |
| container_volume | 52 |
| creator | EL-Adalany, Mohamed Ali EL-Razek, Ahmed Abd E L-khalek Abd EL-Diasty, Tarek EL-Hendy, Ahmed EL-Metwally, Dina |
| description | Background
Prostate cancer (PCa) is considered to be the commonest cancer among males. Early and precise diagnosis of PCa is essential for adequate treatment. Multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) is actually the most precise imaging technique used for early diagnosis of PCa. The aim of this work was to assess the diagnostic capability of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of PI-RADS V2.1 in detection of prostate cancer (PCa). This prospective study was carried on 60 male patients with high PSA. bpMRI and mpMRI were performed for all patients using a 3-T MRI scanner. The diagnostic performance of bpMRI of PI-RADS V2.1 was compared to that of mpMRI of PI-RADS V 2.1. The diagnosis of Pca was confirmed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy and the results of open prostatectomy specimens.
Results
When considering PI-RADS categories 1, 2, and 3 as benign and categories 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI (sensitivity was 88.6% for mpMRI versus 60% for bpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 91.7% for mpMRI versus 75% for bpMRI). When considering PI-RADS categories 1 and 2 as benign and PI-RADS categories 3.4 and 5 as malignant, the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI and mpMRI were comparable (sensitivity was 94.3% for both bpMRI and mpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 86.7% for both bpMRI and mpMRI).
Conclusion
Considering PI-RADS scores 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI; however, when considering PI-RADS scores 3, 4, and 5 as malignant, both bpMRI and mpMRI had similar diagnostic accuracy. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s43055-021-00443-y |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2788432627</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A680227555</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_1f6af1aa9aff47b681ea770e8728a96e</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A680227555</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-a39145e75f9fc509d59860c5c4880fff16eb2a5f8209c18b9ee8502dfc3853533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9Ul1r3DAQNKWBhjR_oE-CPvsqyZIsP4brRw5SEpK2r2JPXhkdZ-sq6Sj3T_Jzo4vTJoVS6UHLsDPaWaaq3jG6YEyrD0k0VMqaclZTKkRTH15Vp5x2tBat4q9f1G-q85Q2tBxBKVPitLpfhnEH0acwkTXmX4jl9QWBEXP0lsDUk3G_zS-xr7fEjzD4aSDBkZsYUoaMZPWE3eIuxHysjuSPkIHcHVLGkfzAmHz5iS8Y8RPpMaPNR6DI7H7LWJgsxrfViYNtwvOn96z6_vnTt-VlfXX9ZbW8uKqt6FSuoemYkNhK1zkradfLTitqpRVaU-ccU7jmIJ0uO7BMrztELSnvnW20bGTTnFWrWbcPsDG7WIzFgwngzSMQ4mCgmLFbNMwpcAygA-dEu1aaIbQtRd1yDZ3CovV-1ipefu4xZbMJ-ziV8Q1vtRYNV7x97hqgiPrJhRzBjj5Zc6E05byVUpauxT-6yu1x9DZM6HzB_yLwmWDLIlNE98cMo-aYEzPnxJScmMecmEMhNTMpleZpwPg88X9YD0n2wMs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2788432627</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MR imaging of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 in detection of prostate cancer</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>EL-Adalany, Mohamed Ali ; EL-Razek, Ahmed Abd E L-khalek Abd ; EL-Diasty, Tarek ; EL-Hendy, Ahmed ; EL-Metwally, Dina</creator><creatorcontrib>EL-Adalany, Mohamed Ali ; EL-Razek, Ahmed Abd E L-khalek Abd ; EL-Diasty, Tarek ; EL-Hendy, Ahmed ; EL-Metwally, Dina</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Prostate cancer (PCa) is considered to be the commonest cancer among males. Early and precise diagnosis of PCa is essential for adequate treatment. Multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) is actually the most precise imaging technique used for early diagnosis of PCa. The aim of this work was to assess the diagnostic capability of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of PI-RADS V2.1 in detection of prostate cancer (PCa). This prospective study was carried on 60 male patients with high PSA. bpMRI and mpMRI were performed for all patients using a 3-T MRI scanner. The diagnostic performance of bpMRI of PI-RADS V2.1 was compared to that of mpMRI of PI-RADS V 2.1. The diagnosis of Pca was confirmed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy and the results of open prostatectomy specimens.
Results
When considering PI-RADS categories 1, 2, and 3 as benign and categories 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI (sensitivity was 88.6% for mpMRI versus 60% for bpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 91.7% for mpMRI versus 75% for bpMRI). When considering PI-RADS categories 1 and 2 as benign and PI-RADS categories 3.4 and 5 as malignant, the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI and mpMRI were comparable (sensitivity was 94.3% for both bpMRI and mpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 86.7% for both bpMRI and mpMRI).
Conclusion
Considering PI-RADS scores 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI; however, when considering PI-RADS scores 3, 4, and 5 as malignant, both bpMRI and mpMRI had similar diagnostic accuracy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2090-4762</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0378-603X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2090-4762</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s43055-021-00443-y</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Biopsy ; bpMRI ; Cancer ; Cancer surgery ; Cancer therapies ; Contraindications ; Contrast agents ; Diagnosis ; DWI ; Imaging ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Males ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Medicine, Experimental ; mpMRI ; Nuclear Medicine ; Patients ; Prostate ; Prostate cancer ; Radiology ; Statistical analysis ; T2WI ; Urological surgery</subject><ispartof>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2021-03, Vol.52 (1), p.68-7, Article 68</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-a39145e75f9fc509d59860c5c4880fff16eb2a5f8209c18b9ee8502dfc3853533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-a39145e75f9fc509d59860c5c4880fff16eb2a5f8209c18b9ee8502dfc3853533</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>EL-Adalany, Mohamed Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-Razek, Ahmed Abd E L-khalek Abd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-Diasty, Tarek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-Hendy, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-Metwally, Dina</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MR imaging of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 in detection of prostate cancer</title><title>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</title><addtitle>Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med</addtitle><description>Background
Prostate cancer (PCa) is considered to be the commonest cancer among males. Early and precise diagnosis of PCa is essential for adequate treatment. Multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) is actually the most precise imaging technique used for early diagnosis of PCa. The aim of this work was to assess the diagnostic capability of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of PI-RADS V2.1 in detection of prostate cancer (PCa). This prospective study was carried on 60 male patients with high PSA. bpMRI and mpMRI were performed for all patients using a 3-T MRI scanner. The diagnostic performance of bpMRI of PI-RADS V2.1 was compared to that of mpMRI of PI-RADS V 2.1. The diagnosis of Pca was confirmed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy and the results of open prostatectomy specimens.
Results
When considering PI-RADS categories 1, 2, and 3 as benign and categories 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI (sensitivity was 88.6% for mpMRI versus 60% for bpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 91.7% for mpMRI versus 75% for bpMRI). When considering PI-RADS categories 1 and 2 as benign and PI-RADS categories 3.4 and 5 as malignant, the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI and mpMRI were comparable (sensitivity was 94.3% for both bpMRI and mpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 86.7% for both bpMRI and mpMRI).
Conclusion
Considering PI-RADS scores 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI; however, when considering PI-RADS scores 3, 4, and 5 as malignant, both bpMRI and mpMRI had similar diagnostic accuracy.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>bpMRI</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer surgery</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Contraindications</subject><subject>Contrast agents</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>DWI</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Males</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>mpMRI</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostate</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>T2WI</subject><subject>Urological surgery</subject><issn>2090-4762</issn><issn>0378-603X</issn><issn>2090-4762</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9Ul1r3DAQNKWBhjR_oE-CPvsqyZIsP4brRw5SEpK2r2JPXhkdZ-sq6Sj3T_Jzo4vTJoVS6UHLsDPaWaaq3jG6YEyrD0k0VMqaclZTKkRTH15Vp5x2tBat4q9f1G-q85Q2tBxBKVPitLpfhnEH0acwkTXmX4jl9QWBEXP0lsDUk3G_zS-xr7fEjzD4aSDBkZsYUoaMZPWE3eIuxHysjuSPkIHcHVLGkfzAmHz5iS8Y8RPpMaPNR6DI7H7LWJgsxrfViYNtwvOn96z6_vnTt-VlfXX9ZbW8uKqt6FSuoemYkNhK1zkradfLTitqpRVaU-ccU7jmIJ0uO7BMrztELSnvnW20bGTTnFWrWbcPsDG7WIzFgwngzSMQ4mCgmLFbNMwpcAygA-dEu1aaIbQtRd1yDZ3CovV-1ipefu4xZbMJ-ziV8Q1vtRYNV7x97hqgiPrJhRzBjj5Zc6E05byVUpauxT-6yu1x9DZM6HzB_yLwmWDLIlNE98cMo-aYEzPnxJScmMecmEMhNTMpleZpwPg88X9YD0n2wMs</recordid><startdate>20210302</startdate><enddate>20210302</enddate><creator>EL-Adalany, Mohamed Ali</creator><creator>EL-Razek, Ahmed Abd E L-khalek Abd</creator><creator>EL-Diasty, Tarek</creator><creator>EL-Hendy, Ahmed</creator><creator>EL-Metwally, Dina</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>SpringerOpen</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210302</creationdate><title>Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MR imaging of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 in detection of prostate cancer</title><author>EL-Adalany, Mohamed Ali ; EL-Razek, Ahmed Abd E L-khalek Abd ; EL-Diasty, Tarek ; EL-Hendy, Ahmed ; EL-Metwally, Dina</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-a39145e75f9fc509d59860c5c4880fff16eb2a5f8209c18b9ee8502dfc3853533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>bpMRI</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer surgery</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Contraindications</topic><topic>Contrast agents</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>DWI</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Males</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>mpMRI</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostate</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>T2WI</topic><topic>Urological surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>EL-Adalany, Mohamed Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-Razek, Ahmed Abd E L-khalek Abd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-Diasty, Tarek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-Hendy, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EL-Metwally, Dina</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>EL-Adalany, Mohamed Ali</au><au>EL-Razek, Ahmed Abd E L-khalek Abd</au><au>EL-Diasty, Tarek</au><au>EL-Hendy, Ahmed</au><au>EL-Metwally, Dina</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MR imaging of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 in detection of prostate cancer</atitle><jtitle>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</jtitle><stitle>Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med</stitle><date>2021-03-02</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>68</spage><epage>7</epage><pages>68-7</pages><artnum>68</artnum><issn>2090-4762</issn><issn>0378-603X</issn><eissn>2090-4762</eissn><abstract>Background
Prostate cancer (PCa) is considered to be the commonest cancer among males. Early and precise diagnosis of PCa is essential for adequate treatment. Multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) is actually the most precise imaging technique used for early diagnosis of PCa. The aim of this work was to assess the diagnostic capability of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of PI-RADS V2.1 in detection of prostate cancer (PCa). This prospective study was carried on 60 male patients with high PSA. bpMRI and mpMRI were performed for all patients using a 3-T MRI scanner. The diagnostic performance of bpMRI of PI-RADS V2.1 was compared to that of mpMRI of PI-RADS V 2.1. The diagnosis of Pca was confirmed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy and the results of open prostatectomy specimens.
Results
When considering PI-RADS categories 1, 2, and 3 as benign and categories 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI (sensitivity was 88.6% for mpMRI versus 60% for bpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 91.7% for mpMRI versus 75% for bpMRI). When considering PI-RADS categories 1 and 2 as benign and PI-RADS categories 3.4 and 5 as malignant, the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI and mpMRI were comparable (sensitivity was 94.3% for both bpMRI and mpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 86.7% for both bpMRI and mpMRI).
Conclusion
Considering PI-RADS scores 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI; however, when considering PI-RADS scores 3, 4, and 5 as malignant, both bpMRI and mpMRI had similar diagnostic accuracy.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1186/s43055-021-00443-y</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2090-4762 |
| ispartof | Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2021-03, Vol.52 (1), p.68-7, Article 68 |
| issn | 2090-4762 0378-603X 2090-4762 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2788432627 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Springer Nature OA Free Journals |
| subjects | Accuracy Biopsy bpMRI Cancer Cancer surgery Cancer therapies Contraindications Contrast agents Diagnosis DWI Imaging Magnetic resonance imaging Males Medical research Medicine Medicine & Public Health Medicine, Experimental mpMRI Nuclear Medicine Patients Prostate Prostate cancer Radiology Statistical analysis T2WI Urological surgery |
| title | Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MR imaging of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 in detection of prostate cancer |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T17%3A45%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20between%20biparametric%20and%20multiparametric%20MR%20imaging%20of%20Prostate%20Imaging%20Reporting%20and%20Data%20System%20Version%202.1%20in%20detection%20of%20prostate%20cancer&rft.jtitle=Egyptian%20Journal%20of%20Radiology%20and%20Nuclear%20Medicine&rft.au=EL-Adalany,%20Mohamed%20Ali&rft.date=2021-03-02&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=68&rft.epage=7&rft.pages=68-7&rft.artnum=68&rft.issn=2090-4762&rft.eissn=2090-4762&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s43055-021-00443-y&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA680227555%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2788432627&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A680227555&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_1f6af1aa9aff47b681ea770e8728a96e&rfr_iscdi=true |