Optimized MRI Assessment for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A STARD ‐Compliant Two‐Center Study

Jie Bao,Rui Zhi,Ying Hou,Jing Zhang,Chen‐Jiang Wu,Xi‐Ming Wang,Yu‐Dong Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27394
IF: 4.4
2020-10-19
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Background</h3><p>There is a requirement for a personalized strategy to make MRI more accessible to men with suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC).</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Purpose</h3><p>To evaluate an optimized (Op)‐MRI compared with biparametric (Bp)‐MRI and multiparametric (Mp)‐MRI for the diagnosis of CSPC.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Study Type</h3><p>Two‐center, retrospective.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Subjects</h3><p>A total of 346 patients from center 1 and 292 patients from center 2.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Field Strength/Sequence</h3><p>3.0T scanners, T<sub>2</sub>‐weighted imaging (T<sub>2</sub>WI), diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) imaging. </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Assessment</h3><p>Four radiologists interpreted the Bp‐MRI (T<sub>2</sub>WI and DWI) and Mp‐MRI (T<sub>2</sub>WI, DWI, and DCE) independently according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS). For Op‐MRI, two radiologists used an adjusted decision rule on Bp‐MRI‐assessed PI‐RADS 3 lesions by determining early enhancement of DCE. Pathologies at biopsy and/or prostatectomy specimens were used as standard references. </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Statistical Tests</h3><p>Performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Kappa statistics were used to assess interobserver variability.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>Interreader agreement was excellent for all three MRI assessments (all κ values &gt;0.80). Op‐MRI had comparable sensitivity (senior/junior: 90.9% [261/287] / 91.6% [263/287]) and higher specificity (78.1% [274/351] /74.4% [261/351]) compared with Mp‐MRI (sensitivity: 92.3% [265/287] / 93.7% [269/287]; specificity: 67.8% [238/351] / 68.1% [239/351]) and Bp‐MRI (sensitivity: 91.6% [263/287] / 93.4% [268/287]; specificity: 71.2% [250/351] / 70.1% [246/351]) for the diagnosis of CSPC. Compared to Mp‐MRI, Op‐MRI spared biopsy in 80.7% (515/638) of DCE scans with similar performance accuracy. Compared to Bp‐MRI, Op‐MRI downgraded 25.2% (31/123) of lesions at a cost of missing 6.5% (3/46) of malignancies, and upgraded 45.5% (56/123) of lesions with a positive predictive value of 62.5% (35/56) in 123 equivocal findings.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Data Conclusion</h3><p>The Op‐MRI, using an adjusted PI‐RADS decision rule, did not compromise diagnostic accuracy with sparing biopsy in 80.7% of DCE scans compared to Mp‐MRI, and outperformed Bp‐MRI by regrading PI‐RADS lesions.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Level of Evidence</h3><p>4</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Technical Efficacy Stage</h3><p>2</p></section>
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
What problem does this paper attempt to address?