scholarly journals Value of systematic biopsy added to target biopsy for detecting significant cancer in men with Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System 5

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-113
Author(s):  
Taein An ◽  
Byung Kwan Park
Keyword(s):  
Data System ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Systematic Biopsy ◽  
Target Biopsy

scholarly journals New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Inji Chang ◽  
Byung Kwan Park
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Targeting ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Imaging Features ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Mri Findings ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Trus Biopsy ◽  
Trus Image ◽  
Systematic Biopsy ◽  
Target Biopsy

PurposeTo determine if the new transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) techniques and imaging features contribute to targeting Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5.Materials and MethodsBetween December 2018 and February 2020, 115 men underwent cognitive biopsy by radiologist A, who was familiar with the new TRUS findings and biopsy techniques. During the same period, 179 men underwent magnetic resonance imaging–TRUS image fusion or cognitive biopsy by radiologist B, who was unfamiliar with the new biopsy techniques. Prior to biopsy, both radiologists knew MRI findings such as the location, size, and shape of PI-RADS 4 or 5. We recorded how many target biopsies were performed without systematic biopsy and how many of these detected higher Gleason score (GS) than those detected by systematic biopsy. The numbers of biopsy cores were also obtained. Fisher Exact or Mann–Whitney test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsFor PI-RADS 4, target biopsy alone was performed in 0% (0/84) by radiologist A and 0.8% (1/127) by radiologist B (p>0.9999). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 57.7% (30/52) by radiologist A and 29.5% (23/78) by radiologist B (p = 0.0019). For PI-RADS 5, target biopsy alone was performed in 29.0% (9/31) by radiologist A and 1.9% (1/52) by radiologist B (p = 0.0004). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 50.0% (14/28) by radiologist A and 18.2% (8/44) by radiologist B (p = 0.0079). Radiologist A sampled fewer biopsy cores than radiologist B (p = 0.0008 and 0.0023 for PI-RADS 4 and 5), respectively.ConclusionsPI-RADS 4 or 5 can be more precisely targeted if the new TRUS biopsy techniques are applied.

scholarly journals Evaluating the efficacy of a low-cost, minimally-invasive cognitive MRI targeted biopsy protocol in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 era.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuta Takeshima ◽  
Yoshinori Tanaka ◽  
Kotaro Takemura ◽  
Shusaku Nakazono ◽  
Eiko Yamashita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Multiparametric Mri ◽  
Data System ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Biopsy Protocol ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Systematic Biopsy

Abstract Background: New MRI-guided targeting biopsy methods have increased cancer yield of prostate biopsies. However, cost and time constraints have made it difficult for many institutions to implement these newer methods. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of a low-cost, minimally-invasive, cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy protocol based on 1.5T multiparametric MRI graded with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 that is easily implemented in any low- to intermediate- volume center. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 255 patients who underwent prostate biopsy between December 2016 and March 2019 at a single facility. Indication for biopsy was based on clinical parameters including 1.5T multiparametric MRI. In addition to 10-core systematic biopsy, targeted cores were obtained with cognitive recognition under ultrasound. A control group of 198 patients biopsied without prior MRI from January to December 2015 was also analyzed. Results: Prostate biopsy preceded by MRI had a significantly higher probability of detecting both prostate cancer (68.1% vs. 43.6%) and clinically significant cancer (56.2% vs. 29.4%) (p values< 0.01). Combination of systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy outperformed either regimen alone for detection of prostate cancer. Multivariate analysis showed PSA density and prostate imaging reporting and data system score were independent risk factors of prostate cancer. A proposed diagnostic model showed sensitivity of 88.6%, specificity of 55%, PPV of 81.2%, NPV of 68.8%, and accuracy of 78%. Prostate imaging reporting and data system score was correlated with a higher presence of prostate cancer, clinically significant prostate cancer, and a higher pathological grade. Conclusions: Incorporation of pre-biopsy MRI imaging, scoring, and targeted biopsy improved cancer yield and achieved diagnostic performance comparable to newer methods of higher cost. Future alterations of possible benefit included increasing the number of target cores per lesion, and combining prostate imaging reporting and data system score and PSA density as indicators for biopsy.

scholarly journals Interobserver agreement of Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS–v2)

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hala Maher Ahmed ◽  
Ahmed Ebrahim Ebeed ◽  
Ahmed Hamdy ◽  
Mohamed Abou El-Ghar ◽  
Ahmed Abdel Khalek Abdel Razek
Keyword(s):  
Interobserver Agreement ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Peripheral Zone ◽  
Transitional Zone ◽  
Data System ◽  
3 Tesla ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Percent Agreement ◽  
3 Tesla Mri

Abstract Background A retrospective study was conducted on 71 consecutive patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) with a mean age of 56 years and underwent mp-MRI of the prostate at 3 Tesla MRI. Two readers recognized all prostatic lesions, and each lesion had a score according to Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS-v2). Purpose of the study To evaluate the interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 in characterization of prostatic lesions using multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) at 3 Tesla MRI. Results The overall interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 for both zones was excellent (k = 0.81, percent agreement = 94.9%). In the peripheral zone (PZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS II (k = 0.78, percent agreement = 83.9%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.66, percent agreement = 91.3 %), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.69, percent agreement = 93.5%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.91, percent agreement = 95.7 %). In the transitional zone (TZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS I (k = 0.98, percent of agreement = 96%), PI-RADS II (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 96%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 88%), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.83, percent agreement = 96%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.82, percent agreement = 92%). Conclusion We concluded that PI-RADS-v2 is a reliable and a reproducible imaging modality for the characterization of prostatic lesions and detection of PCa.

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS): What the radiologists need to know?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Abdel Khalek Abdel Razek ◽  
Tarek El-Diasty ◽  
Ahmed Elhendy ◽  
Dalia Fahmy ◽  
Mohamed Ali EL-Adalany
Keyword(s):  
Data System ◽  
Prostate Imaging

Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. 20201434
Author(s):  
Yasuyo Urase ◽  
Yoshiko Ueno ◽  
Tsutomu Tamada ◽  
Keitaro Sofue ◽  
Satoru Takahashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Data System ◽  
Transition Zones ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
3.0 T ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Interreader Agreement

Objectives: To evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1, in comparison with v2. Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. Seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists) independently scored eight regions [six peripheral zones (PZ) and two transition zones (TZ)] using v2.1 and v2. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics. To evaluate diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), area under the curve (AUC) was estimated. Results 228 regions were pathologically diagnosed as positive for csPC. With a cutoff ≥3, the agreement among all readers was better with v2.1 than v2 in TZ, PZ, or both zones combined (κ-value: TZ, 0.509 vs 0.414; PZ, 0.686 vs 0.568; both zones combined, 0.644 vs 0.531). With a cutoff ≥4, the agreement among all readers was also better with v2.1 than v2 in the PZ or both zones combined (κ-value: PZ, 0.761 vs 0.701; both zones combined, 0.756 vs 0.709). For all readers, AUC with v2.1 was higher than with v2 (TZ, 0.826–0.907 vs 0.788–0.856; PZ, 0.857–0.919 vs 0.853–0.902). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the PI-RADS v2.1 could improve the interreader agreement and might contribute to improved diagnostic performance compared with v2. Advances in knowledge: PI-RADS v2.1 has a potential to improve interreader variability and diagnostic performance among radiologists with different levels of expertise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document