Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]179446
• Experience Exchang •
Comparison of scores between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2 based on prostate slice-by-slice pathology
WANG Huihui  GAO Ge  HE Qun  SHEN Qi  WANG He  WANG Xiaoying 

Cite this article as: Wang HH, Gao G, He Q, et al. Comparison of scores between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2 based on prostate slice-by-slice pathology[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 13(4): 120-123. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.04.023.


[Abstract] Objective To analyze changes in prostate cancer scores between PI-RADS v2.1 and v2.Materials and Methods Retrospective review of 53 consecutive multiparametric MRI from Dec 2012 to Jul 2017. Eighty-nine cancers diagnosed by whole-mount step-section pathology were collected and corresponding MRI images were interpreted by two radiologists together using both PI-RADS v2.1 and v2.Results Comparing v2.1 with v2, 11.2% of PI-RADS scores changed (20.5% in the transition zone, 4% in the peripheral zone). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of PI-RADS ≥3 between the PI-RADS v2.1 and v2 (73.0% vs. 70.8%, P＞0.05). There were no statistically significant difference in area under the ROC curve (AUC) between the PI-RADS v2.1 and v2 for detecting all csPCa, csPCa in the transition zone and peripheral zone (0.873 vs. 0.895, Z=1.098, P=0.272; 0.867 vs. 0.878, Z=0.301, P=0.763; 0.841 vs. 0.884, Z=1.231, P=0.218).Conclusions The most prominent change between v2.1 and v2 was observed in the transition zone with downgrading from PI-RADS 2 to 1. Overall, the total number of PI-RADS ≥3 was not changed significantly, with an expected low influence in clinical management.
[Keywords] prostate cancer；prostate imaging reporting and data system；magnetic resonance imaging；comparative study；pathological section

WANG Huihui1   GAO Ge1   HE Qun2   SHEN Qi2   WANG He1   WANG Xiaoying1*  

1 Department of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China

2 Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital/Institute of Urology Peking University, Beijing 100034, China

Wang XY, E-mail: cjr.wangxiaoying@vip.163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2021-11-19
Accepted  2022-03-15
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.04.023
Cite this article as: Wang HH, Gao G, He Q, et al. Comparison of scores between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2 based on prostate slice-by-slice pathology[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 13(4): 120-123. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.04.023.

[1]
Tan GH, Nason G, Ajib K, et al. Smarter screening for prostate cancer[J]. World J Urol, 2019, 37(6): 991-999. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02719-5.
[2]
Li X, Zeng XY. Advances in epidemiology of prostate cancer in China[J]. Cancer Res Prev Treat, 2021, 48(1): 98-102. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2021.20.0370.
[3]
He J, Chen WQ, Li N, et al. China guideline for the screening and early detection of prostate cancer (2022, Beijing)[J]. Chin J Oncol, 2022, 44(1): 29-53. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20211226-00975.
[4]
Purysko AS, Bittencourt LK, Bullen JA, et al. Accuracy and interobserver agreement for prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2, for the characterization of lesions identified on multiparametric MRI of the prostate[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2017, 209(2): 339-349. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.17289.
[5]
Brembilla G, Dell'Oglio P, Stabile A, et al. Interreader variability in prostate MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1[J]. Eur Radiol, 2020, 30(6): 3383-3392. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06654-2.
[6]
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, 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.
[7]
Wang L. China interpretation of prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS V2.1) guideline for prostate cancer management[J]. Chin J Radiol, 2020, 54(4): 273-278. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20190429-00382.
[8]
Wang HH, Wang XY. Multiparametric prostate MRI progress: interpretation of PI-RADS v2.1[J]. J Pract Radiol, 2020, 36(11): 1865-1868. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1671.2020.11.040.
[9]
Linhares Moreira AS, de Visschere P, van Praet C, et al. How does PI-RADS v2.1 impact patient classification? A head-to-head comparison between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1[J]. Acta Radiol, 2021, 62(6): 839-847. DOI: 10.1177/0284185120941831.
[10]
Lee CH, Vellayappan B, Tan CH. Comparison of diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Br J Radiol, 2022, 95(1131): 20210509. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210509.
[11]
Huang ZJ, Li BS, Tan FQ, et al. The diagnostic value of PI-RADS v2.1 for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer[J]. J Contemp Urol Reproductive Oncol, 2021, 13(5): 278-283. DOI: 10.3870/j.issn.1674-4624.2021.05.006.
[12]
Wang HH, Hu J, He Q, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version2(PI-RADS v2)in detecting different volume of prostate cancer: based on whole-mount step-section pathology[J]. Radiol Pract, 2018, 33(4): 398-402. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2018.04.015.
[13]
Costa DN, Jia LW, Subramanian N, et al. Prospective PI-RADS v2.1 atypical benign prostatic hyperplasia nodules with marked restricted diffusion: detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2021, 217(2): 395-403. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.24370.
[14]
Byun J, Park KJ, Kim MH, et al. Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and 2.1 in transition zone lesions for detection of prostate cancer: preliminary experience[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 52(2): 577-586. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27080.
[15]
Xu LL, Zhang G, Zhang DM, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2020, 45(12): 4133-4141. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02738-6.
[16]
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.
[17]
Jiang AM, Zhao XX. Study of PSAD and PI-RADS V2.1 score in multifocal and clinically significant prostate cancer[J]. J Clin Radiol, 2021, 40(6): 1166-1171. DOI: 10.13437/j.cnki.jcr.2021.06.028.
[18]
Wang ZY, Xiao JM, Pu BJ, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer[J]. J Clin Radiol, 2021, 40(7): 1345-1349. DOI: 10.13437/j.cnki.jcr.2021.07.022.
[19]
Tan SX, Zhang YY, Wang S, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic value of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 and version 2.1 in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiology.2020, 55(2):160-165. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20200212-00144.
[20]
Yang S, Zhang CY, Zhang YY, et al. The diagnostic value of version 2.1 prostate imaging reporting and data system for prostate transitional zone lesions[J]. Natl Med J China, 2020, 100(45): 3609-3613. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20200506-01442.
[21]
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.
[22]
Bhayana R, O'Shea A, Anderson MA, et al. PI-RADS versions 2 and 2.1: interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance in peripheral and transition zone lesions among six radiologists[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2021, 217(1): 141-151. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.24199.

PREV The value of IDEAL-IQ in differential diagnosis of AFP-negative hepatocellular carcinoma and focal nodular hyperplasia
NEXT Construction of prediction model of intermediate risk factors for early cervical cancer based on preoperative MRI radiomics and clinical features
  


LINK


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