PI-RADS Version 2.0 Versus Version 2.1: Comparison of Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Upgrade and Downgrade Rates From MRI-Targeted Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy
Precise risk stratification through MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) can guide optimal prostate cancer (PCa) management. The purpose of this study was to compare PI-RADS version 2.0 (v2.0) and PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) in terms of the rates of International Society of Urologi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of roentgenology (1976) 2024-01, Vol.222 (1), p.e2329964 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | e2329964 |
| container_title | American journal of roentgenology (1976) |
| container_volume | 222 |
| creator | Yilmaz, Enis C Lin, Yue Belue, Mason J Harmon, Stephanie A Phelps, Tim E Merriman, Katie M Hazen, Lindsey A Garcia, Charisse Johnson, Latrice Lay, Nathan S Toubaji, Antoun Merino, Maria J Patel, Krishnan R Parnes, Howard L Law, Yan Mee Wood, Bradford J Gurram, Sandeep Choyke, Peter L Pinto, Peter A Turkbey, Baris |
| description | Precise risk stratification through MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) can guide optimal prostate cancer (PCa) management.
The purpose of this study was to compare PI-RADS version 2.0 (v2.0) and PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) in terms of the rates of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) upgrade and downgrade from TBx to radical prostatectomy (RP).
This study entailed a retrospective post hoc analysis of patients who underwent 3-T prostate MRI at a single institution from May 2015 to March 2023 as part of three prospective clinical trials. Trial participants who underwent MRI followed by MRI/US fusion-guided TBx and RP within a 1-year interval were identified. A single genitourinary radiologist performed clinical interpretations of the MRI examinations using PI-RADS v2.0 from May 2015 to March 2019 and PI-RADS v2.1 from April 2019 to March 2023. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were compared using chi-square tests. Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP GG2 or greater.
The final analysis included 308 patients (median age, 65 years; median PSA density, 0.16 ng/mL
). The v2.0 group (
= 177) and v2.1 group (
= 131) showed no significant difference in terms of upgrade rate (29% vs 22%, respectively;
= .15), downgrade rate (19% vs 21%,
= .76), clinically significant upgrade rate (14% vs 10%,
= .27), or clinically significant downgrade rate (1% vs 1%,
> .99). The upgrade rate and downgrade rate were also not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups when stratifying by index lesion PI-RADS category or index lesion zone, as well as when assessed only in patients without a prior PCa diagnosis (all
> .01). Among patients with GG2 or GG3 at RP (
= 121 for v2.0;
= 103 for v2.1), the concordance rate between TBx and RP was not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups (53% vs 57%,
= .51).
Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were not significantly different between patients whose MRI examinations were clinically interpreted using v2.0 or v2.1.
Implementation of the most recent PI-RADS update did not improve the incongruence in PCa grade assessment between TBx and surgery. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2214/AJR.23.29964 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2867152861</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2867152861</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-4ead66b774287c90dd92cd0c82a1e724d28eff28872113c75507f35afd0b4ab43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkctOwzAQRS0EoqWwY428ZEGCX4kTdqWlpaiIKrSIXeTaDgpK4mCnQv0c_pT0QcVmZu7M0dVIF4BLjHxCMLvtPyU-oT6J45AdgS4OWOhRzPAx6CIaYi9C9L0Dzpz7RAjxKOanoEM5J3EQ4C74mU28pD98hW_autxUkPhoO6_cvxW-gwNT1sLmrtUmgzNrXCMaDQeiktrCcaHF5jS2Qmm4qD-2XVQKDs13tVNJyzs4sqaEz8nEmwv7oRut4H1uareGjWkJlUtRHNxlY8r1OTjJROH0xb73wGL0MB88etOX8WTQn3qSkrjxmBYqDJecMxJxGSOlYiIVkhERWHPCFIl0lpEo4gRjKnkQIJ7RQGQKLZlYMtoD1zvf2pqvlXZNWuZO6qIQlTYrl5Io5DhoK27Rmx0q20ed1Vla27wUdp1ilG5CSdtQUkLTbSgtfrV3Xi1LrQ7wXwr0F4L9hxs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2867152861</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>PI-RADS Version 2.0 Versus Version 2.1: Comparison of Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Upgrade and Downgrade Rates From MRI-Targeted Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy</title><source>American Roentgen Ray Society</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Yilmaz, Enis C ; Lin, Yue ; Belue, Mason J ; Harmon, Stephanie A ; Phelps, Tim E ; Merriman, Katie M ; Hazen, Lindsey A ; Garcia, Charisse ; Johnson, Latrice ; Lay, Nathan S ; Toubaji, Antoun ; Merino, Maria J ; Patel, Krishnan R ; Parnes, Howard L ; Law, Yan Mee ; Wood, Bradford J ; Gurram, Sandeep ; Choyke, Peter L ; Pinto, Peter A ; Turkbey, Baris</creator><creatorcontrib>Yilmaz, Enis C ; Lin, Yue ; Belue, Mason J ; Harmon, Stephanie A ; Phelps, Tim E ; Merriman, Katie M ; Hazen, Lindsey A ; Garcia, Charisse ; Johnson, Latrice ; Lay, Nathan S ; Toubaji, Antoun ; Merino, Maria J ; Patel, Krishnan R ; Parnes, Howard L ; Law, Yan Mee ; Wood, Bradford J ; Gurram, Sandeep ; Choyke, Peter L ; Pinto, Peter A ; Turkbey, Baris</creatorcontrib><description>Precise risk stratification through MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) can guide optimal prostate cancer (PCa) management.
The purpose of this study was to compare PI-RADS version 2.0 (v2.0) and PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) in terms of the rates of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) upgrade and downgrade from TBx to radical prostatectomy (RP).
This study entailed a retrospective post hoc analysis of patients who underwent 3-T prostate MRI at a single institution from May 2015 to March 2023 as part of three prospective clinical trials. Trial participants who underwent MRI followed by MRI/US fusion-guided TBx and RP within a 1-year interval were identified. A single genitourinary radiologist performed clinical interpretations of the MRI examinations using PI-RADS v2.0 from May 2015 to March 2019 and PI-RADS v2.1 from April 2019 to March 2023. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were compared using chi-square tests. Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP GG2 or greater.
The final analysis included 308 patients (median age, 65 years; median PSA density, 0.16 ng/mL
). The v2.0 group (
= 177) and v2.1 group (
= 131) showed no significant difference in terms of upgrade rate (29% vs 22%, respectively;
= .15), downgrade rate (19% vs 21%,
= .76), clinically significant upgrade rate (14% vs 10%,
= .27), or clinically significant downgrade rate (1% vs 1%,
> .99). The upgrade rate and downgrade rate were also not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups when stratifying by index lesion PI-RADS category or index lesion zone, as well as when assessed only in patients without a prior PCa diagnosis (all
> .01). Among patients with GG2 or GG3 at RP (
= 121 for v2.0;
= 103 for v2.1), the concordance rate between TBx and RP was not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups (53% vs 57%,
= .51).
Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were not significantly different between patients whose MRI examinations were clinically interpreted using v2.0 or v2.1.
Implementation of the most recent PI-RADS update did not improve the incongruence in PCa grade assessment between TBx and surgery.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-803X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1546-3141</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1546-3141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2214/AJR.23.29964</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37729551</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><ispartof>American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2024-01, Vol.222 (1), p.e2329964</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-4ead66b774287c90dd92cd0c82a1e724d28eff28872113c75507f35afd0b4ab43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-4ead66b774287c90dd92cd0c82a1e724d28eff28872113c75507f35afd0b4ab43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4106,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37729551$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yilmaz, Enis C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Yue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belue, Mason J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harmon, Stephanie A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phelps, Tim E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merriman, Katie M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hazen, Lindsey A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia, Charisse</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Latrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lay, Nathan S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toubaji, Antoun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merino, Maria J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Krishnan R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parnes, Howard L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Law, Yan Mee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Bradford J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurram, Sandeep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choyke, Peter L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinto, Peter A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turkbey, Baris</creatorcontrib><title>PI-RADS Version 2.0 Versus Version 2.1: Comparison of Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Upgrade and Downgrade Rates From MRI-Targeted Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy</title><title>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</title><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><description>Precise risk stratification through MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) can guide optimal prostate cancer (PCa) management.
The purpose of this study was to compare PI-RADS version 2.0 (v2.0) and PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) in terms of the rates of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) upgrade and downgrade from TBx to radical prostatectomy (RP).
This study entailed a retrospective post hoc analysis of patients who underwent 3-T prostate MRI at a single institution from May 2015 to March 2023 as part of three prospective clinical trials. Trial participants who underwent MRI followed by MRI/US fusion-guided TBx and RP within a 1-year interval were identified. A single genitourinary radiologist performed clinical interpretations of the MRI examinations using PI-RADS v2.0 from May 2015 to March 2019 and PI-RADS v2.1 from April 2019 to March 2023. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were compared using chi-square tests. Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP GG2 or greater.
The final analysis included 308 patients (median age, 65 years; median PSA density, 0.16 ng/mL
). The v2.0 group (
= 177) and v2.1 group (
= 131) showed no significant difference in terms of upgrade rate (29% vs 22%, respectively;
= .15), downgrade rate (19% vs 21%,
= .76), clinically significant upgrade rate (14% vs 10%,
= .27), or clinically significant downgrade rate (1% vs 1%,
> .99). The upgrade rate and downgrade rate were also not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups when stratifying by index lesion PI-RADS category or index lesion zone, as well as when assessed only in patients without a prior PCa diagnosis (all
> .01). Among patients with GG2 or GG3 at RP (
= 121 for v2.0;
= 103 for v2.1), the concordance rate between TBx and RP was not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups (53% vs 57%,
= .51).
Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were not significantly different between patients whose MRI examinations were clinically interpreted using v2.0 or v2.1.
Implementation of the most recent PI-RADS update did not improve the incongruence in PCa grade assessment between TBx and surgery.</description><issn>0361-803X</issn><issn>1546-3141</issn><issn>1546-3141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkctOwzAQRS0EoqWwY428ZEGCX4kTdqWlpaiIKrSIXeTaDgpK4mCnQv0c_pT0QcVmZu7M0dVIF4BLjHxCMLvtPyU-oT6J45AdgS4OWOhRzPAx6CIaYi9C9L0Dzpz7RAjxKOanoEM5J3EQ4C74mU28pD98hW_autxUkPhoO6_cvxW-gwNT1sLmrtUmgzNrXCMaDQeiktrCcaHF5jS2Qmm4qD-2XVQKDs13tVNJyzs4sqaEz8nEmwv7oRut4H1uareGjWkJlUtRHNxlY8r1OTjJROH0xb73wGL0MB88etOX8WTQn3qSkrjxmBYqDJecMxJxGSOlYiIVkhERWHPCFIl0lpEo4gRjKnkQIJ7RQGQKLZlYMtoD1zvf2pqvlXZNWuZO6qIQlTYrl5Io5DhoK27Rmx0q20ed1Vla27wUdp1ilG5CSdtQUkLTbSgtfrV3Xi1LrQ7wXwr0F4L9hxs</recordid><startdate>202401</startdate><enddate>202401</enddate><creator>Yilmaz, Enis C</creator><creator>Lin, Yue</creator><creator>Belue, Mason J</creator><creator>Harmon, Stephanie A</creator><creator>Phelps, Tim E</creator><creator>Merriman, Katie M</creator><creator>Hazen, Lindsey A</creator><creator>Garcia, Charisse</creator><creator>Johnson, Latrice</creator><creator>Lay, Nathan S</creator><creator>Toubaji, Antoun</creator><creator>Merino, Maria J</creator><creator>Patel, Krishnan R</creator><creator>Parnes, Howard L</creator><creator>Law, Yan Mee</creator><creator>Wood, Bradford J</creator><creator>Gurram, Sandeep</creator><creator>Choyke, Peter L</creator><creator>Pinto, Peter A</creator><creator>Turkbey, Baris</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202401</creationdate><title>PI-RADS Version 2.0 Versus Version 2.1: Comparison of Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Upgrade and Downgrade Rates From MRI-Targeted Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy</title><author>Yilmaz, Enis C ; Lin, Yue ; Belue, Mason J ; Harmon, Stephanie A ; Phelps, Tim E ; Merriman, Katie M ; Hazen, Lindsey A ; Garcia, Charisse ; Johnson, Latrice ; Lay, Nathan S ; Toubaji, Antoun ; Merino, Maria J ; Patel, Krishnan R ; Parnes, Howard L ; Law, Yan Mee ; Wood, Bradford J ; Gurram, Sandeep ; Choyke, Peter L ; Pinto, Peter A ; Turkbey, Baris</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-4ead66b774287c90dd92cd0c82a1e724d28eff28872113c75507f35afd0b4ab43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yilmaz, Enis C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Yue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belue, Mason J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harmon, Stephanie A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phelps, Tim E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merriman, Katie M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hazen, Lindsey A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia, Charisse</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Latrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lay, Nathan S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toubaji, Antoun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merino, Maria J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Krishnan R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parnes, Howard L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Law, Yan Mee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Bradford J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurram, Sandeep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choyke, Peter L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinto, Peter A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turkbey, Baris</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yilmaz, Enis C</au><au>Lin, Yue</au><au>Belue, Mason J</au><au>Harmon, Stephanie A</au><au>Phelps, Tim E</au><au>Merriman, Katie M</au><au>Hazen, Lindsey A</au><au>Garcia, Charisse</au><au>Johnson, Latrice</au><au>Lay, Nathan S</au><au>Toubaji, Antoun</au><au>Merino, Maria J</au><au>Patel, Krishnan R</au><au>Parnes, Howard L</au><au>Law, Yan Mee</au><au>Wood, Bradford J</au><au>Gurram, Sandeep</au><au>Choyke, Peter L</au><au>Pinto, Peter A</au><au>Turkbey, Baris</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>PI-RADS Version 2.0 Versus Version 2.1: Comparison of Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Upgrade and Downgrade Rates From MRI-Targeted Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy</atitle><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><date>2024-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>222</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e2329964</spage><pages>e2329964-</pages><issn>0361-803X</issn><issn>1546-3141</issn><eissn>1546-3141</eissn><abstract>Precise risk stratification through MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) can guide optimal prostate cancer (PCa) management.
The purpose of this study was to compare PI-RADS version 2.0 (v2.0) and PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) in terms of the rates of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) upgrade and downgrade from TBx to radical prostatectomy (RP).
This study entailed a retrospective post hoc analysis of patients who underwent 3-T prostate MRI at a single institution from May 2015 to March 2023 as part of three prospective clinical trials. Trial participants who underwent MRI followed by MRI/US fusion-guided TBx and RP within a 1-year interval were identified. A single genitourinary radiologist performed clinical interpretations of the MRI examinations using PI-RADS v2.0 from May 2015 to March 2019 and PI-RADS v2.1 from April 2019 to March 2023. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were compared using chi-square tests. Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP GG2 or greater.
The final analysis included 308 patients (median age, 65 years; median PSA density, 0.16 ng/mL
). The v2.0 group (
= 177) and v2.1 group (
= 131) showed no significant difference in terms of upgrade rate (29% vs 22%, respectively;
= .15), downgrade rate (19% vs 21%,
= .76), clinically significant upgrade rate (14% vs 10%,
= .27), or clinically significant downgrade rate (1% vs 1%,
> .99). The upgrade rate and downgrade rate were also not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups when stratifying by index lesion PI-RADS category or index lesion zone, as well as when assessed only in patients without a prior PCa diagnosis (all
> .01). Among patients with GG2 or GG3 at RP (
= 121 for v2.0;
= 103 for v2.1), the concordance rate between TBx and RP was not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups (53% vs 57%,
= .51).
Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were not significantly different between patients whose MRI examinations were clinically interpreted using v2.0 or v2.1.
Implementation of the most recent PI-RADS update did not improve the incongruence in PCa grade assessment between TBx and surgery.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>37729551</pmid><doi>10.2214/AJR.23.29964</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0361-803X |
| ispartof | American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2024-01, Vol.222 (1), p.e2329964 |
| issn | 0361-803X 1546-3141 1546-3141 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2867152861 |
| source | American Roentgen Ray Society; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| title | PI-RADS Version 2.0 Versus Version 2.1: Comparison of Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Upgrade and Downgrade Rates From MRI-Targeted Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T13%3A41%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PI-RADS%20Version%202.0%20Versus%20Version%202.1:%20Comparison%20of%20Prostate%20Cancer%20Gleason%20Grade%20Upgrade%20and%20Downgrade%20Rates%20From%20MRI-Targeted%20Biopsy%20to%20Radical%20Prostatectomy&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20roentgenology%20(1976)&rft.au=Yilmaz,%20Enis%20C&rft.date=2024-01&rft.volume=222&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e2329964&rft.pages=e2329964-&rft.issn=0361-803X&rft.eissn=1546-3141&rft_id=info:doi/10.2214/AJR.23.29964&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2867152861%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2867152861&rft_id=info:pmid/37729551&rfr_iscdi=true |