Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection.

Purpose To test the impact of existing Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (V2) decision rules, as well as of proposed adjustments to these decision rules, on detection of Gleason score (GS) 7 or greater (GS ≥7) prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two radiologists independently provided PI-RADS V2 scores for the dominant lesion on 343 prostate magnetic resonance (MR) examinations. Diagnostic performance for GS ≥7 tumor was assessed by using MR imaging-ultrasonography fusion-targeted biopsy as the reference. The impact of existing PI-RADS V2 decision rules, as well as a series of exploratory proposed adjustments, on the frequency of GS ≥7 tumor detection, was evaluated. Results A total of 210 lesions were benign, 43 were GS 6, and 90 were GS ≥7. Lesions were GS ≥7 in 0%-4.1% of PI-RADS categories 1 and 2, 11.4%-27.1% of PI-RADS category 3, 44.4%-49.3% of PI-RADS category 4, and 72.1%-73.7% of PI-RADS category 5 lesions. PI-RADS category 4 or greater had sensitivity of 78.9%-87.8% and specificity of 75.5%-79.1 for detecting GS ≥7 tumor. The frequency of GS ≥7 tumor for existing PI-RADS V2 decision rules was 30.0%-33.3% in peripheral zone (PZ) lesions upgraded from category 3 to 4 based on dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) score of positive; 50.0%-66.7% in transition zone (TZ) lesions upgraded from category 3 to 4 based on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) score of 5; and 71.7%-72.7% of lesions in both zones upgraded from category 4 to 5 based on size of 15 mm or greater. The frequency of GS ≥7 tumor for proposed adjustments to the decision rules was 30.0%-60.0% for TZ lesions upgraded from category 3 to 4 based on DWI score of 4; 33.3%-57.1% for TZ lesions upgraded from category 3 to 4 based on DCE score of positive when incorporating new criteria (unencapsulated sheetlike enhancement) for DCE score of positive in TZ; and 56.4%-61.9% for lesions in both zones upgraded from category 4 to 5 based on size of 10-14 mm. Other proposed adjustments yielded GS ≥7 tumor in less than 15% of cases for one or more readers. Conclusion Existing PI-RADS V2 decision rules exhibited reasonable performance in detecting GS ≥7 tumor. Several proposed adjustments to the criteria (in TZ, upgrading category 3 to 4 based on DWI score of 4 or modified DCE score of positive; in PZ or TZ, upgrading category 4 to 5 based on size of 10-14 mm) may also have value for this purpose. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

[1]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. , 2013, Radiology.

[2]  Hersh Chandarana,et al.  Computed diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 T: impact on image quality and tumour detection , 2013, European Radiology.

[3]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy in a Consecutive Cohort of Men with No Previous Biopsy: Reduction of Over Detection through Improved Risk Stratification. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[4]  P. Choyke,et al.  Differentiating Transition Zone Cancers From Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia by Quantitative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2016, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[5]  J. Babb,et al.  T2-weighted imaging of the prostate: Impact of the BLADE technique on image quality and tumor assessment , 2014, Abdominal Imaging.

[6]  D. Margolis,et al.  Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Lessons Learned Midst the Evolution of a Disruptive Technology. , 2015, Urology.

[7]  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.

[8]  A. Thompson,et al.  MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: combined apparent diffusion coefficient, metabolite ratio, and vascular parameters. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Aaron Fenster,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for prostate cancer: Quantifying the impact of needle delivery error on diagnosis. , 2014, Medical physics.

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

[11]  P. Choyke,et al.  Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies , 2008, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[12]  Li Feng,et al.  Dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI of the prostate with high spatiotemporal resolution using compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and continuous golden‐angle radial sampling: Preliminary experience , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[13]  M. Stifelman,et al.  A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. , 2014, European urology.

[14]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Practical Barriers to Obtaining Pre-Biopsy Prostate MRI: Assessment in Over 1,500 Consecutive Men Undergoing Prostate Biopsy in a Single Urologic Practice , 2016, Urologia Internationalis.

[15]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Value of 3-T Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance–Guided Biopsy for Early Risk Restratification in Active Surveillance of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study , 2014, Investigative radiology.

[16]  Justin M Ream,et al.  Prostate Cancer Detection Using Computed Very High b-value Diffusion-weighted Imaging: How High Should We Go? , 2016, Academic radiology.

[17]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), Version 2: A Critical Look. , 2016, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

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

[20]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancer: revisiting the role of multiparametric MRI at 3 T. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy in Men With Previous Negative Biopsies: Impact on Repeat Biopsy Strategies. , 2015, Urology.

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

[23]  G. Carvalhal,et al.  Validation of PI‐RADS v.2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased‐array coil , 2016, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[24]  J. Babb,et al.  Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: Assessment at an optimal threshold , 2016, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[25]  Fang-Ming Deng,et al.  Relationship Between Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Biopsy Indication, and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy Outcomes. , 2016, European urology.

[26]  J. Babb,et al.  Does normalisation improve the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values for prostate cancer assessment? A blinded independent-observer evaluation. , 2015, Clinical radiology.

[27]  Justin M Ream,et al.  Dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI of the prostate: An intraindividual assessment of the effect of temporal resolution on qualitative detection and quantitative analysis of histopathologically proven prostate cancer , 2017, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

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

[29]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  The Learning Curve in Prostate MRI Interpretation: Self-Directed Learning Versus Continual Reader Feedback. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  Adam T Froemming,et al.  Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. , 2016, Radiology.

[31]  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.