Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for detection of prostate cancer with targeted MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy

Jie BAO,Ximing WANG,Mo ZHU,Xiaoxia PING,Chunhong HU,Junkang SHEN
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1671.2017.08.015
2017-01-01
Abstract:Objective To evaluate the prostate imaging reporting and data system(PI-RADS) version 1 and version 2 for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MpMRI) in a consecutive cohort of patients with magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography (MRI-TRUS) fusion-guided biopsy.Methods 30 suspicious lesions including 15 prostate cancer and 15 non cancer at 3.0 T MpMRI were scored according to the PI-RADS V1(≥ 3 scores in at least one MRI sequence)system before MRI-TRUS fusion guided biopsy and correlated to histopathology results.PI-RADS V2 and Likert scores were determined retrospectively,diagnostic accuracy was determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.Results The PI-RADS score of the dominant lesion was significantly higher in patients with PCa compared to patients with negative histopathology (PI-RADS V1:12.10±2.60 vs 7.47±1.98,P<0.05;PI-RADS V2:4.21±1.18 vs 2.79±0.92,P<0.05);Using a Likert score cut-off ≥ 4,a sensitivity of 73.7%,a specificity of 78.9%, positive predictive value of 77.74% and a negative predictive value of 75.00% (AUC=0.778,95%CI:0.63-0.93), a PI-RADS V1 cut-off ≥ 10,a sensitivity of 73.7%,a specificity of 94.7%,positive predictive value of 93.29% and a negative predictive value of 78.26% (AUC=0.911,95%CI:0.82-1.00) and PI-RADS V2 cut-off ≥ 4,a sensitivity of 57.9%, a specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 73.37% (AUC=0.837,95%CI:0.70-0.97) were achieved.Conclusion The described fusion system is dependable and efficient for targeted MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy.MpMRI PI-RADS scores combined with a novel real-time MRI-TRUS fusion system facilitate sufficient diagnosis of PCa with high sensitivity and specificity,PI-RADS scores appears to be the preferable method for the evaluation of prostate cancer than Likert score, while V2 does not perform better than V1.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?