Effect of observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in PI-RADS v2.1 assessment category 4 and 5 observations compared to adverse pathological outcomes
Objective To compare observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 category 4 and 5 observations to adverse pathological features. Materials and methods With institutional review board approval, 267 consecutive men with...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2020-08, Vol.30 (8), p.4251-4261 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective
To compare observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 category 4 and 5 observations to adverse pathological features.
Materials and methods
With institutional review board approval, 267 consecutive men with 3-T MRI before radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2012 and 2018 were evaluated by two blinded radiologists who assigned PI-RADS v2.1 scores. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A third blinded radiologist measured observation size and ADC (ADC.mean, ADC.min [lowest ADC within an observation], ADC.ratio [ADC.mean/ADC.peripheral zone {PZ}]). Size and ADC were compared to pathological stage and Gleason score (GS) using
t
tests, ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
Results
Consensus review identified 267 true positive category 4 and 5 observations representing 83.1% (222/267) PZ and 16.9% (45/267) transition zone (TZ) tumors. Inter-observer agreement for PI-RADS v2.1 scoring was moderate (
K
= 0.45). Size was associated with extra-prostatic extension (EPE) (19 ± 8 versus 14 ± 6 mm,
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00330-020-06725-9 |