
Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 and 2 in a cohort of 245 patients with histopathological reference and long-term follow-up
- Author
- Pieter De Visschere (UGent) , EVA PATTYN (UGent) , Piet Ost (UGent) , Tom Claeys, Nicolaas Lumen (UGent) and Geert Villeirs (UGent)
- Organization
- Abstract
- Objective: To compare the performance of PI-RADSv2 with PI-RADSv1 in patients with elevated PSA before biopsy. Methods: 245 patients with elevated PSA underwent mpMRI before biopsy between May 2011 and December 2014 at 3.0 Tesla without endorectal coil. Patients underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic 12-core biopsy followed by radical prostatectomy (N = 68), radiation therapy (N = 91) or clinical follow-up for at least two years (N = 86). All exams were scored on a per-patient basis according to PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2. ClinsigPC was defined as Gleason score >= 7 (including 3+4 with prominent but not predominant Gleason 4 component), and/or tumour volume of >= 0.5cc, and/or tumour stage >= T3a. Results: In 144 patients (58.8%) a ClinsigPC was found within two years after mpMRI. The PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 overall assessment scores were significantly higher (P < 0.001) in patients with ClinsigPC as compared to patients without ClinsigPC. ROC analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.82 (CI 0.76-0.87) for PI-RADSv1 and 0.79 (CI 0.73-0.85) for PI-RADSv2 (P: NS). A threshold score of 3 exhibited sensitivities of 88.2% and 79.2% (P = 0.001) and specificities of 64.4% and 67.3% (P: NS) with PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2, respectively. Conclusions: The mpMRI scoring systems PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 yield similar accuracy to detect ClinsigPC in patients with elevated PSA, although clinicians should be aware that when an overall assessment score of 3 is used as a threshold for a positive mpMRI, PI-RADSv2 has lower sensitivity than PI-RADSv1. Nevertheless, PI-RADSv2 is preferable over PI-RADSv1 because it has the advantage of providing well-defined instructions on how to determine the overall assessment category.
- Keywords
- Prostate neoplasms, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Diffusion Weighted Imaging, MR spectroscopic imaging, Prostate cancer, SCORING SYSTEM, MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI, REFERENCE-STANDARD, CANCER, VALIDATION, BIOPSY, AGREEMENT, DIAGNOSIS, ACCURACY
Downloads
-
2016 DVI JBSR PI-RADSv1v2.pdf
- full text
- |
- open access
- |
- |
- 1.99 MB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8167713
- MLA
- De Visschere, Pieter, et al. “Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and 2 in a Cohort of 245 Patients with Histopathological Reference and Long-Term Follow-Up.” JOURNAL OF THE BELGIAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY, vol. 100, no. 1, 2016.
- APA
- De Visschere, P., PATTYN, E., Ost, P., Claeys, T., Lumen, N., & Villeirs, G. (2016). Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 and 2 in a cohort of 245 patients with histopathological reference and long-term follow-up. JOURNAL OF THE BELGIAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY, 100(1).
- Chicago author-date
- De Visschere, Pieter, EVA PATTYN, Piet Ost, Tom Claeys, Nicolaas Lumen, and Geert Villeirs. 2016. “Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and 2 in a Cohort of 245 Patients with Histopathological Reference and Long-Term Follow-Up.” JOURNAL OF THE BELGIAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY 100 (1).
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- De Visschere, Pieter, EVA PATTYN, Piet Ost, Tom Claeys, Nicolaas Lumen, and Geert Villeirs. 2016. “Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and 2 in a Cohort of 245 Patients with Histopathological Reference and Long-Term Follow-Up.” JOURNAL OF THE BELGIAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY 100 (1).
- Vancouver
- 1.De Visschere P, PATTYN E, Ost P, Claeys T, Lumen N, Villeirs G. Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 and 2 in a cohort of 245 patients with histopathological reference and long-term follow-up. JOURNAL OF THE BELGIAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY. 2016;100(1).
- IEEE
- [1]P. De Visschere, E. PATTYN, P. Ost, T. Claeys, N. Lumen, and G. Villeirs, “Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 and 2 in a cohort of 245 patients with histopathological reference and long-term follow-up,” JOURNAL OF THE BELGIAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY, vol. 100, no. 1, 2016.
@article{8167713, abstract = {Objective: To compare the performance of PI-RADSv2 with PI-RADSv1 in patients with elevated PSA before biopsy. Methods: 245 patients with elevated PSA underwent mpMRI before biopsy between May 2011 and December 2014 at 3.0 Tesla without endorectal coil. Patients underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic 12-core biopsy followed by radical prostatectomy (N = 68), radiation therapy (N = 91) or clinical follow-up for at least two years (N = 86). All exams were scored on a per-patient basis according to PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2. ClinsigPC was defined as Gleason score >= 7 (including 3+4 with prominent but not predominant Gleason 4 component), and/or tumour volume of >= 0.5cc, and/or tumour stage >= T3a. Results: In 144 patients (58.8%) a ClinsigPC was found within two years after mpMRI. The PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 overall assessment scores were significantly higher (P < 0.001) in patients with ClinsigPC as compared to patients without ClinsigPC. ROC analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.82 (CI 0.76-0.87) for PI-RADSv1 and 0.79 (CI 0.73-0.85) for PI-RADSv2 (P: NS). A threshold score of 3 exhibited sensitivities of 88.2% and 79.2% (P = 0.001) and specificities of 64.4% and 67.3% (P: NS) with PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2, respectively. Conclusions: The mpMRI scoring systems PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 yield similar accuracy to detect ClinsigPC in patients with elevated PSA, although clinicians should be aware that when an overall assessment score of 3 is used as a threshold for a positive mpMRI, PI-RADSv2 has lower sensitivity than PI-RADSv1. Nevertheless, PI-RADSv2 is preferable over PI-RADSv1 because it has the advantage of providing well-defined instructions on how to determine the overall assessment category.}, articleno = {108}, author = {De Visschere, Pieter and PATTYN, EVA and Ost, Piet and Claeys, Tom and Lumen, Nicolaas and Villeirs, Geert}, issn = {1780-2393}, journal = {JOURNAL OF THE BELGIAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY}, keywords = {Prostate neoplasms,Magnetic Resonance Imaging,Diffusion Weighted Imaging,MR spectroscopic imaging,Prostate cancer,SCORING SYSTEM,MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI,REFERENCE-STANDARD,CANCER,VALIDATION,BIOPSY,AGREEMENT,DIAGNOSIS,ACCURACY}, language = {eng}, number = {1}, pages = {10}, title = {Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 and 2 in a cohort of 245 patients with histopathological reference and long-term follow-up}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jbr-btr.1147}, volume = {100}, year = {2016}, }
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric
- Web of Science
- Times cited: