Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]167164
• Clinical Article •
Study of PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2 for diagnostic value of transition zone prostate cancer
ZHANG Dan  ZHU Zichao  SONG Na  WANG Tao  YU Jia  CAI Lei  CHEN Zhiqiang 

Cite this article as: Zhang D, Zhu ZC, Song N, et al. Study of PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2 for diagnostic value of transition zone prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 13(1): 54-58. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.01.011.


[Abstract] Objective To study the diagnostic value of PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2 (prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 and version 2) in diagnosing transition zone prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).Materials and Methods: The clinical and imaging data of 108 patients with transitional zone lesions (53 cases of PCa, 55 cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia and/or inflammation) confirmed by pathology were analyzed retrospectively. Two radiologists independently scored the lesions according to PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2. Kappa test was used to assess the consistency of the scoring results between two radiologists; ROC curve was used to evaluate and calculate the diagnostic efficiency of PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2 for PCa and csPCa. Spearman correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between the scoring results and Gleason score.Results The consistency of PI-RADS v2.1 was improved compared with PI-RADS v2 (Kappa value was 0.794 vs. 0.724 for all lesions, 0.826 vs. 0.758 for csPCa lesions, 0.734 vs. 0.678 for PCa lesions); the sensitivity, accuracy and AUC value of PI-RADS v2.1 in diagnosing PCa and csPCa and specificity of PI-RADS v2.1 in diagnosing PCa were slightly higher than those of PI-RADS v2 (AUC: 0.949 vs. 0.922 for PCa, 0.955 vs. 0.931 for csPCa; sensitivity: 0.981 vs. 0.943 for PCa, 0.978 vs. 0.956 for csPCa; specificity: 0.764 vs. 0.745 for PCa), but the difference was not significant (all P＞0.05); the scoring results of PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2 were moderately positively correlated with Gleason score (r=0.552 vs. r=0.507, P＜0.05).Conclusions PI-RADS v2.1 has better consistency and the diagnostic efficiency is not lower than PI-RADS v2 for transition zone PCa and csPCa; the PI-RADS score can guide the puncture and help assess the aggressiveness of the tumor.
[Keywords] prostate cancer；prostate imaging reporting and data system；Gleason score；multi-parameter magnetic resonance imaging

ZHANG Dan1, 2   ZHU Zichao2   SONG Na2   WANG Tao2   YU Jia3   CAI Lei1   CHEN Zhiqiang1*  

1 Department of Radiology, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan 750004, China

2 Clinical medicine school of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan 750004, China

3 Department of Genetics, School of Basic Medicine, Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan 750004, China

Chen ZQ, E-mail: zhiqiang_chen99@163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Key Research and Development Program of Ningxia (No. 2019BEG03033); Natural Science Fund Program of Ningxia (No. 2020AAC03156).
Received  2021-07-22
Accepted  2021-12-17
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.01.011
Cite this article as: Zhang D, Zhu ZC, Song N, et al. Study of PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2 for diagnostic value of transition zone prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 13(1): 54-58. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.01.011.

[1]
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2020, 70(1): 7-30. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21590.
[2]
Feng RM, Zong YN, Cao SM, et al. Current cancer situation in China: good or bad news from the 2018 Global Cancer Statistics?[J]. Cancer Communications, 2019, 39(1): 1-12. DOI: 10.1186/s40880-019-0368-6.
[3]
Wang YR, Guo QY, Yu B, et al. Current status and prospect of multi-parameter magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer[J]. Radiol Prac, 2018, 33 (12): 1339-1342. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2018.12.022.
[4]
Costa DN. Multiparametric MRI of the Prostate: Beyond Cancer Detection and Staging. Radiology[J]. 2021, 299(3): 624-625. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021204506.
[5]
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(1): 16-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.
[6]
Li P, Huang Y, Li Y, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 score in the diagnosis of transitional zone prostate cancer and its correlation with gleason score[J]. Chin J Med Imag, 2020, 28 (8): 633-636. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-5185.2020.08.019.
[7]
Peng FH, Shen XZ, Cai JX, et al. The diagnostic value of mp-MRI for detecting transition zone prostate cancer based on PI-RADS V2[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2018, 9(12): 922-927. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2018.12.008.
[8]
Becker AS, Cornelius A, Reiner CS, et al. Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 1 regarding interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2017, 94: 58-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.016.
[9]
Spilseth B, Ghai S, Patel NU, et al. A Comparison of Radiologists' and Urologists' Opinions Regarding Prostate MRI Reporting: Results From a Survey of Specialty Societies[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018, 210(1): 101-107. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18241.
[10]
Li P, Huang YH, Zhang J, et al. Evaluation of PI-RADS V2 in diagnosis of prostate cancer by using 3.0 T MR[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2018, 9(10): 773-777. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2018.10.011.
[11]
Wang R, Wang H, Zhao C, et al. Evaluation of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detection and Prediction of Prostate Cancer[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(6): e0130207. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130207.
[12]
Hassanzadeh E, Glazer DI, Dunne RM, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2): a pictorial review[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2017, 42(1): 278-289. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0871-z.
[13]
Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), Version 2: A Critical Look[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2016, 206(6): 1179-1183. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.15765.
[14]
Smith CP, Türkbey B. PI-RADS v2: Current standing and future outlook[J]. Turk J Urol, 2018, 44(3): 189-194. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.12144.
[15]
Sackett J, Choyke PL, Turkbey B. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for MRI of Prostate Cancer: Can We Do Better?[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2019, 212(6): 1244-1252. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.21178.
[16]
Baris B, Andrew BR, Masoom AH, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(3): 340-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
[17]
Hua HJ, Zhang ZH. A new grading system based on the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Pathol, 2016, 45(7): 495-497. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5807.2016.07.020.
[18]
Urase Y, Ueno Y, Tamada T, et al. 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[J]. Br J Radiol, 2021, 20201434. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20201434.
[19]
Tamada T, Kido A, Takeuchi M, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2019, 121: 108704. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108704.
[20]
Wei CG, Zhang YY, Pan P, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement of PI-RADS Version 2 and Version 2.1 for the Detection of Transition Zone Prostate Cancers[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021, 216(5): 1247-1256. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.23883.
[21]
Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, et al. PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway[J]. Radiology, 2019, 292(2): 464-474. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182946.
[22]
Swanson GP, Trevathan S, Hammonds KAP, et al. Gleason Score Evolution and the Effect on Prostate Cancer Outcomes[J]. Am J Clin Pathol, 2021, 155(5): 711-717. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa130.
[23]
Lu QJ, Chen Z, Qin XP, et al. Progression of Gleason score after radical prostatectomy[J]. Chin J Urol, 2020, 41(12): 953-956. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20200101-00003.

PREV The clinical application value of DWI in quantitative evaluation of Crohn′s disease lesions
NEXT The value of multimodal MRI combined with clinical indexes in predicting the short-term effect of neoadjuvant therapy for stage ⅠB1-ⅡA2 cervical cancer
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn