Chinese Medical Journal (Jan 2016)

Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 1 versus Version 2

  • Zhao-Yan Feng,
  • Liang Wang,
  • Xiang-De Min,
  • Shao-Gang Wang,
  • Guo-Ping Wang,
  • Jie Cai

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.191771
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 129, no. 20
pp. 2451 – 2459

Abstract

Read online

Background: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is a globally acceptable standardization for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. The American College of Radiology revised the PI-RADS to address the limitations of version 1 in December 2014. This study aimed to determine whether the PI-RADS version 2 (PI-RADS v2) scoring system improves the diagnostic accuracy of mp-MRI of the prostate compared with PI-RADS v1. Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. A total of 401 consecutive patients, with clinically suspicious PCa undergoing 3.0 T mp-MRI (T2-weighted imaging + diffusion-weighted imaging + DCE) before transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy between June 2013 and July 2015, were included in the study. All patients were scored using the 5-point PI-RADS scoring system based on either PI-RADS v1 or v2. Receiver operating characteristics were calculated for statistical analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were compared using McNemar′s test. Results: PCa was present in 150 of 401 (37.41%) patients. When we pooled data from both peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ), the areas under the curve were 0.889 for PI-RADS v1 and 0.942 for v2 (P = 0.0001). Maximal accuracy was achieved with a score threshold of 4. At this threshold, in the PZ, similar sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were achieved with v1 and v2 (all P > 0.05). In the TZ, sensitivity was higher for v2 than for v1 (96.36% vs. 76.36%, P = 0.003), specificity was similar for v2 and v1 (90.24% vs. 84.15%, P = 0.227), and accuracy was higher for v2 than for v1 (92.70% vs. 81.02%, P = 0.002). Conclusions: Both v1 and v2 showed good diagnostic performance for the detection of PCa. However, in the TZ, the performance was better with v2 than with v1.

Keywords