Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
cancer; detection; mpMRI; PI-RADSv2; prostate
© 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Background: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v. 2 (PI-RADSv2) provides standardized nomenclature for interpretation of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Inclusion of additional features for categorization may provide benefit to stratification of disease. Purpose: To prospectively compare PI-RADSv2 to a qualitative in-house system for detecting prostate cancer on mpMRI. Study Type: Prospective. Population: In all, 338 patients who underwent mpMRI May 2015–May 2016, with subsequent MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy. Field Strength: 3T mpMRI (T2W, diffusion-weighted [DW], apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] map, b-2000 DWI acquisition, and dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] MRI). Assessment: One genitourinary radiologist prospectively read mpMRIs using both in-house and PI-RADSv2 5-category systems. Statistical Test: In lesion-based analysis, overall and clinically significant (CS) tumor detection rates (TDR) were calculated for all PI-RADSv2 and in-house categories. The ability of each scoring system to detect cancer was assessed by area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Within each PI-RADSv2 category, lesions were further stratified by their in-house categories to determine if TDRs can be increased by combining features of both systems. Results: In 338 patients (median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 6.5 [0.6–113.6] ng/mL; age 64 [44–84] years), 733 lesions were identified (47% tumor-positive). Predictive abilities of both systems were comparable for all (AUC 76–78%) and CS cancers (AUCs 79%). The in-house system had higher overall and CS TDRs than PI-RADSv2 for categories 3 and 4 (P < 0.01 for both), with the greatest difference between the scoring systems seen in lesions scored category 4 (CS TDRs: in-house 65%, PI-RADSv2 22.1%). For lesions categorized as PI-RADSv2 = 4, characterization of suspicious/indeterminate extraprostatic extension (EPE) and equivocal findings across all mpMRI sequences contributed to significantly different TDRs for both systems (TDR range 19–75%, P < 0.05). Data Conclusion: PI-RADSv2 behaves similarly to an existing validated system that relies on the number of sequences on which a lesion is seen. This prospective evaluation suggests that sequence positivity and suspicion of EPE can enhance PI-RADSv2 category 4 cancer detection. Level of Evidence: 1. Technical Efficacy: Stage 3. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1326–1335.
Gaur, S., Harmon, S., Mehralivand, S., Bednarova, S., Calio, B., Sugano, D., Sidana, A., Merino, M., Pinto, P., Wood, B., Shih, J., Choyke, P., & Turkbey, B. (2018). Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 48 (5). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26025