Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]3273
• Clinical Article •
Diagnosis value of BP-MRI combined clinical predictors for prostate cancer
HUANG Dandan  FENG Qianru  LI Zenghua  XIA Chunhua 

Cite this article as: HUANG D D, FENG Q R, LI Z H, et al. Diagnosis value of BP-MRI combined clinical predictors for prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(10): 90-97. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.10.016.


[Abstract] Objective The aim of this study was to assess diagnostic efficacy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (BP-MRI) and BP-MRI combined with clinical predictors vs. multiparametric MRI (MP-MRI) for prostate cancer (PCa) based on the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1).Materials and Methods This study retrospectively analyzed 171 patients with clinically suspected PCa who underwent MP-MRI examination before systematic biopsy in our hospital from January 2020 to May 2022. The prostate MR images of all lesions were scored by the two schemes of MP-MRI and BP-MRI based on PI-RADS v2.1. Combined with the results of pathology, the lesions were divided into three groups: all lesions group, lesions located in peripheral zone (PZ) group and lesions located in transition zone (TZ) group. BP-MRI, MP-MRI and clinical predictors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis, and the independent predictors were established. The diagnostic performance of the two schemes and BP-MRI combined with independent predictors was analyzed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Results For all of the lesions (PZ+TZ), the BP-MRI, MP-MRI, age, PSAD, and f/tPSA were the independent predictors of PCa, there was no statistical difference in the diagnostic efficacy between BP-MRI and MP-MRI [area under the curve (AUC): 0.888, 0.886; P＞0.05]. Combined model and the combination of BP-MRI and f/tPSA or PSAD (AUC=0.937, 0.924, 0.915) had higher diagnostic efficience than MP-MRI (AUC=0.886). The difference between the AUC value of these combined models and MP-MRI was statistically significant (P＜0.05); PSAD had a larger AUC than the other predictors alone (AUC=0.837), the AUC for the combination of BP-MRI and independent predictors is significantly superior to using BP-MRI score and independent predictors alone (P＜0.05), and compared with the age or f/tPSA index, combining BP-MRI and PSAD had a higher clinical diagnostic efficacy. For lesions in the PZ or TZ, the two schemes of MP-MRI and BP-MRI were the independent predictors, there was no statistical difference in the diagnostic efficacy between BP-MRI (AUC=0.821, 0.908; P＞0.05) and MP-MRI (AUC=0.817, 0.908; P＞0.05).Conclusions BP-MRI has equivalent diagnostic efficacy for PCa to MP-MRI, combining BP-MRI with f/tPSA or PSAD can improve diagnostic efficacy and avoid clinically unnecessary biopsies.
[Keywords] prostate cancer；prostate specific antigen, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System；biparametric magnetic resonance imaging；multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging；diagnostic

HUANG Dandan   FENG Qianru   LI Zenghua   XIA Chunhua*  

Department of Radiology, South District of Hefei First People's Hospital (Hefei Binhu Hospital), Hefei 230000, China

Corresponding author: XIA C H, E-mail: xiachunhua3775@sina.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Scientific Research Project of Anhui Provincial Health Commission (No. AHWJ2021b141); Hefei Sixth Cycle Medical Key Discipline Construction Project (Magnetic Resonance Imaging Diagnosis) [No. He Wei Yi Mi (2022) 157].
Received  2022-08-30
Accepted  2023-10-09
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.10.016
Cite this article as: HUANG D D, FENG Q R, LI Z H, et al. Diagnosis value of BP-MRI combined clinical predictors for prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(10): 90-97. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.10.016.

[1]
SUNG H, FERLAY J, SIEGEL R L, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660.
[2]
SIEGEL R, MILLER K, FUCHS H E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2022[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2022, 72(1): 7-33. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708.
[3]
CARROLL P H, MOHLER J L. NCCN guidelines updates: prostate cancer and prostate cancer early detection[J]. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2018, 16(5S): 620-623. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0036.
[4]
NORDSTRÖM T, AKRE O, ALY M, et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2018, 21(1): 57-63. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-017-0024-7.
[5]
NUNZIO C D, LOMBARDO R, NACCHIA A, et al. Repeat prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test before prostate biopsy: a 20% decrease in PSA values is associated with a reduced risk of cancer and particularly of high-grade cancer[J]. BJU Int, 2018, 122(1): 83-88. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14197.
[6]
SCHOUTEN M G, VAN DER LEEST M, POKORNY M, et al. Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men?[J]. Eur Urol, 2017, 71(6): 896-903. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.006.
[7]
TURKBEY B, ROSENKRANTZ A B, HAIDER M A, 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.
[8]
EKLUND M, JÄDERLING F, DISCACCIATI A, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening[J]. N Engl J Med, 2021, 385(10): 908-920. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100852.
[9]
PARK S Y, CHO N H, JUNG D C, et al. Prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2: beyond prostate cancer detection[J]. Korean J Radiol, 2018, 19(2): 193-200. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.2.193.
[10]
WANG G, YU G, CHEN J, et al. Can high b-value 3.0 T biparametric MRI with the Simplified Prostate Image Reporting and Data System (S-PI-RADS) be used in biopsy-naïve men?[J]. Clin Imaging, 2022, 88: 80-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.06.024.
[11]
ALIUKONIS P, LETAUTA T, BRIEDIENĖ R, et al. The role of different PI-RADS versions in prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance tomography assessment[J]. Acta Med Litu, 2017, 24(1): 44-50. DOI: 10.6001/actamedica.v24i1.3462.
[12]
GREER M D, SHIH J H, LAY N, et al. Validation of the dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS version 2[J]. Radiology, 2017, 285(3): 859-869. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017161316.
[13]
ROSENKRANTZ A B, KIM S, CAMPBELL N, et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: revisiting the role of multiparametric MRI at 3 T[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015, 204(3): W266-W272. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12955.
[14]
SAUCK A, KELLER I, HAINC N, et al. Prostate cancer detection with mpMRI according to PI-RADS v2 compared with systematic MRI/TRUS-fusion biopsy: A prospective study[J]. Tomography, 2022, 8(4): 2020-2029. DOI: 10.3390/tomography8040169.
[15]
RATNANI P, DOVEY Z, PAREKH S, et al. Prostate MRI percentage tumor involvement or "PI-RADS percent" as a predictor of adverse surgical pathology[J]. Prostate, 2022, 82(9): 970-983. DOI: 10.1002/pros.24344.
[16]
WANG Y F, WEI C G, ZHANG Y Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of biparametric MRI combined with PSAD in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer based on PI-RADS v2.1[J]. Radiol Pract, 2021, 36(10): 1253-1258. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2021.10.011.
[17]
WANG J, WANG Z B, LU Y J. A nomogram based on biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS v2 to predict clinically significant prostate cancer[J]. Oncoradiology, 2020, 29(6): 579-587. DOI: 10.19732/j.cnki.2096-6210.2020.06.011.
[18]
BASS E J, PANTOVIC A, CONNOR M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2021, 24(3): 596-611. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-020-00298-w.
[19]
ZAWAIDEH J P, SALA E, SHAIDA N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice[J]. Eur Radiol, 2020, 30(7): 4039-4049. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06782-0.
[20]
KANG Z, MIN X D, WEINREB J, et al. Abbreviated biparametric versus standard multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2019, 212(2): 357-365. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20103.
[21]
NIU X K, CHEN X H, CHEN Z F, et al. Diagnostic performance of biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018, 211(2): 369-378. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18946.
[22]
COLE A P, LANGBEIN B J, GIGANTI F, et al. Is perfect the enemy of good? Weighing the evidence for biparametric MRI in prostate cancer[J/OL]. Br J Radiol, 2022, 95(1131): 20210840 [2022-07-01]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8978228/. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210840.
[23]
SHERRER R L, GLASER Z A, GORDETSKY J B, et al. Comparison of biparametric MRI to full multiparametric MRI for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2019, 22(2): 331-336. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-018-0107-0.
[24]
KUHL C K, BRUHN R, KRÄMER N, et al. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen[J]. Radiology, 2017, 285(2): 493-505. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170129.
[25]
NICHOLSON B, THEODORESCU D. Angiogenesis and prostate cancer tumor growth[J]. J Cell Biochem, 2004, 91(1): 125-150. DOI: 10.1002/jcb.10772.
[26]
ENGELBRECHT M R, HUISMAN H J, LAHEIJ R J, et al. Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging[J]. Radiology, 2003, 229(1): 248-254. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2291020200.
[27]
VERMA S, TURKBEY B, MURADYAN N, et al. Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2012, 198(6): 1277-1288. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.8510.
[28]
WALLSTRÖM J, GETERUD K, KOHESTANI K, et al. Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(11): 8692-8702. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07907-9.
[29]
VARGAS H A, HÖTKER A M, GOLDMAN D A, et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference[J]. Eur Radiol, 2016, 26(6): 1606-1612. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6.
[30]
PIERRE T, CORNUD F, COLLÉTER L, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: should we use quantitative metrics to better characterize focal lesions originating in the peripheral zone?[J]. Eur Radiol, 2018, 28(5): 2236-2245. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5107-2.
[31]
ROSENKRANTZ A B, PARIKH N, KIERANS A S, et al. Prostate cancer detection using computed very high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging: how high should we go?[J]. Acad Radiol, 2016, 23(6): 704-711. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.02.003.
[32]
LIANG Z, HU R, YANG Y J, et al. Is dynamic contrast enhancement still necessary in multiparametric magnetic resonance for diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Transl Androl Urol, 2020, 9(2): 553-573. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2020.02.03.
[33]
FALAGARIO U G, JAMBOR I, LANTZ A, et al. Combined use of prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging for prostate biopsy decision planning: a retrospective multi-institutional study using the prostate magnetic resonance imaging outcome database (PROMOD)[J]. Eur Urol Oncol, 2021, 4(6): 971-979. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.014.
[34]
PAN J F, SU R, CAO J Z, et al. Modified predictive model and nomogram by incorporating prebiopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging with clinical indicators for prostate biopsy decision making[J]. Front Oncol, 2021, 11: 740868 [2022-07-01]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473816/. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.740868.
[35]
WEI C G, PAN P, CHEN T, et al. A nomogram based on PI-RADS v2.1 and clinical indicators for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer in the transition zone[J]. Transl Androl Urol, 2021, 10(6): 2435-2446. DOI: 10.21037/tau-21-49.
[36]
HAN C, LIU S, QIN X B, et al. MRI combined with PSA density in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PSA serum levels of 4-10 ng/mL: Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2020, 101(4): 235-244. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.01.014.
[37]
BOESEN L, NØRGAARD N, LØGAGER V, et al. Prebiopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen density in detecting and ruling out gleason 7-10 prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men[J]. Eur Urol Oncol, 2019, 2(3): 311-319. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.001.
[38]
JOHNSON P M, TONG A, DONTHIREDDY A, et al. Deep learning reconstruction enables highly accelerated biparametric MR imaging of the prostate[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 56(1): 184-195. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28024.
[39]
ZHANG L, ZHE X, TANG M, et al. Predicting the grade of prostate cancer based on a biparametric MRI radiomics signature[J]. Contrast Media Mol Imaging, 2021, 2021: 7830909 [2022-07-01]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8718299/. DOI: 10.1155/2021/7830909.

PREV The diagnostic value of constructing a nomogram mode based on the PI-RADS v2.1 score of Bp-MRI for predicting PSA (4-20 ng/mL) in prostate cancer
NEXT Nomogram based on clinical, pathological, and DWI quantitative parameters for predicting the programmed death-ligand 1 positive expression in cervical cancer: Comparison of different ROI options
  


LINK


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