Evaluation of the PI-RADS Scoring System for Classifying mpMRI Findings in Men with Suspicion of Prostate Cancer

Purpose. To evaluate the ESUR scoring system (PI-RADS) for multiparametric MRI of the prostate in clinical routine and to define a reliable way to generate an overall PI-RADS score. Methods. Retrospective analysis of all patients with a history of negative prebiopsies, who underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI from October 2011 to April 2013 (n = 143): PI-RADS scores for each single modality were defined. To generate the overall PI-RADS score, an algorithm based approach summing up each single-modality score to a sum-score was compared to a more subjective approach, weighting the single modalities dependent on the radiologist's impression. Because of ongoing cancer suspicion 73 patients underwent targeted mpMRI-ultrasound image fusion rebiopsy. For this group thresholds for tumor incidences and malignancy were calculated. Results. 39 (53%) out of 73 targeted rebiopsies were cancer positive. The PI-RADS score correlated well with tumor incidence (AUC of 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94) and malignancy (AUC 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). Regarding the sum-score a threshold of ≥10 turned out to be reliable for cancer detection (sensitivity 90%, specificity 62%) and for ≥13 for indicating higher malignancy (Gleason ≥4 + 3) (sensitivity 80%, specificity 86%). To generate the overall PI-RADS score, the use of an algorithm based approach was more reliable than that of the approach based on the radiologist's impression. Conclusion. The presented scoring system correlates well with tumor incidence and malignancy. To generate the overall PI-RADS score, it seems to be advisable to use an algorithm based instead of a subjective approach.

[1]  M. Röthke,et al.  PI-RADS-Klassifikation: Strukturiertes Befundungsschema für die MRT der Prostata , 2013, Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren.

[2]  H. Schlemmer,et al.  Multiparametrische MRT der Prostata: Methode zur Früherkennung des Prostatakarzinoms? , 2010, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[3]  P. Mozer,et al.  Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. , 2012, European urology.

[4]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. , 2012, European urology.

[5]  Kazuro Sugimura,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: Comparison of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in combination with T2‐weighted imaging , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[6]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Interscanner Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Prostate Cancer: 1.5 Versus 3 T MRI , 2013, Investigative radiology.

[7]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. , 2011, Radiology.

[8]  C. Kim,et al.  High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[10]  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer,et al.  Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[11]  P. Albers,et al.  Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard , 2013, European Radiology.

[12]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[13]  François Cornud,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2‐weighted, dynamic contrast‐enhanced and diffusion‐weighted imaging , 2011, BJU international.

[14]  Raj Persad,et al.  Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  3.0 T multiparametric prostate MRI using pelvic phased-array coil: utility for tumor detection prior to biopsy. , 2013, Urologic oncology.

[16]  Xavier Leroy,et al.  Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. , 2013, Radiology.

[17]  B. K. Park,et al.  Comparison of Phased-Array 3.0-T and Endorectal 1.5-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Local Staging Accuracy for Prostate Cancer , 2007, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[18]  B. K. Park,et al.  Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Evaluation of Prostate Cancer: Optimal B Value at 3T , 2012, Korean journal of radiology.

[19]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Re: M. Minhaj Siddiqui, Soroush Rais-Bahrami, Hong Truong, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:713-9 and Re: Mark Emberton. Has magnetic resonance-guided biopsy of , 2014, European urology.

[20]  B. Carey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. , 2011, European urology.

[21]  M. Oudkerk,et al.  Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Problem‐Solving Modality? , 2009 .

[22]  J. Babb,et al.  Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. , 2013, Radiology.

[23]  Daniel Vanel,et al.  BIRADS classification in mammography. , 2007, European journal of radiology.

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

[25]  H. Schlemmer,et al.  [PI-RADS classification: structured reporting for MRI of the prostate]. , 2013, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[26]  S. Obenauer,et al.  Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification , 2005, European Radiology.

[27]  M. Oudkerk,et al.  Breast magnetic resonance imaging as a problem-solving modality in mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions , 2010, Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society.