Prostate Cancer: PI-RADS Version 2 Helps Preoperatively Predict Clinically Significant Cancers

Purpose To retrospectively analyze whether Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 is helpful for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Institutional review board approved this retrospective study. A total of 425 patients with prostate...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiology 2016-07, Vol.280 (1), p.108-116
Hauptverfasser: Park, Sung Yoon, Jung, Dae Chul, Oh, Young Taik, Cho, Nam Hoon, Choi, Young Deuk, Rha, Koon Ho, Hong, Sung Joon, Han, Kyunghwa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To retrospectively analyze whether Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 is helpful for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Institutional review board approved this retrospective study. A total of 425 patients with prostate cancer who had undergone magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and radical prostatectomy were included. Preoperative parameters such as prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score, greatest percentage of the core, percentage of the positive core number, and score at PI-RADS version 2 with MR imaging were investigated. Two independent readers performed PI-RADS scoring. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as follows: (a) Gleason score of 7 or greater, (b) tumor volume of 0.5 cm(3) or greater, or a (c) positive extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion. The reference standard was based on review of surgical specimen. Logistic regression was conducted to determine which parameters are associated with the presence of clinically significant cancer. Interreader agreement (ie, score ≥4 or not) was investigated by using κ statistics. Results At univariate analysis, all of the preoperative parameters were significant for clinically significant prostate cancer (P < .05). However, multivariate analysis revealed that PI-RADS score was the only significant parameter for both readers (reader 1: odds ratio = 28.170, P = .002; reader 2: odds ratio = 5.474, P = .007). The interreader agreement was excellent for PI-RADS score of 4 or greater (weighted κ = 0.801; 95% confidence interval: 0.737, 0.865). Conclusion The use of PI-RADS version 2 may help preoperatively diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. (©) RSNA, 2016.
ISSN:0033-8419
1527-1315
DOI:10.1148/radiol.16151133