Validation of PI-RADS Version 2 in Transition Zone Lesions for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Purpose To determine the association between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 scores and prostate cancer (PCa) in a cohort of patients undergoing biopsy of transition zone (TZ) lesions. Materials and Methods A total of 634 TZ lesions in 457 patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients undergoing prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Prostate lesions were retrospectively categorized with the PI-RADS version 2 system by two readers in consensus who were blinded to histopathologic findings. The proportion of cancer detection for all PCa and for clinically important PCa (Gleason score ≥3+4) for each PI-RADS version 2 category was determined. The performance of PI-RADS version 2 in cancer detection was evaluated. Results For PI-RADS category 2 lesions, the overall proportion of cancers was 4% (one of 25), without any clinically important cancer. For PI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 lesions, the overall proportion of cancers was 22.2% (78 of 352), 39.1% (43 of 110), and 87.8% (129 of 147), respectively, and the proportion of clinically important cancers was 11.1% (39 of 352), 29.1% (32 of 110), and 77.6% (114 of 147), respectively. Higher PI-RADS version 2 scores were associated with increasing likelihood of the presence of clinically important PCa (P < .001). Differences were found in the percentage of cancers in the PI-RADS category between PI-RADS 3 and those upgraded to PI-RADS 4 based on diffusion-weighted imaging for clinically important cancers (proportion for clinically important cancers for PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 3+1 were 11.1% [39 of 352] and 30.8% [28 of 91], respectively; P < .001). Conclusion Higher PI-RADS version 2 scores are associated with a higher proportion of clinically important cancers in the TZ. PI-RADS category 2 lesions rarely yield PCa, and their presence does not justify targeted biopsy.

[1]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging‐Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[2]  A. Sidana,et al.  Missing the Mark: Prostate Cancer Upgrading by Systematic Biopsy over Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[3]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study , 2017, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  A. Sidana,et al.  Tumor contact with prostate capsule on magnetic resonance imaging: A potential biomarker for staging and prognosis. , 2017, Urologic oncology.

[5]  Shaogang Wang,et al.  Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 1 versus Version 2 , 2016, Chinese medical journal.

[6]  F. Wacker,et al.  Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2 , 2016, PloS one.

[7]  P. Choyke,et al.  Prospective Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Prostate Cancer Detection. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[8]  P. Pinto,et al.  Risk stratification of prostate cancer: integrating multiparametric MRI, nomograms and biomarkers. , 2016, Future oncology.

[9]  D. Georg,et al.  Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[10]  Andrew J. Vickers,et al.  NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. , 2016, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[11]  Shyam Natarajan,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance‐ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies , 2016, Cancer.

[12]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[13]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. , 2016, European urology.

[14]  H. Hricak,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 , 2016, European Radiology.

[15]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging. , 2015, Radiology.

[16]  P. Choyke,et al.  Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[17]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2015, JAMA.

[18]  M. Haider,et al.  The expanding role of MRI in prostate cancer. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  P. Choyke,et al.  Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[20]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. , 2013, European urology.

[21]  Pingkun Yan,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[22]  P. Choyke,et al.  Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. , 2010, Radiology.

[23]  P. Malone,et al.  Prostate , 1995 .