Positive Predictive Value of High-Grade Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System V2.1 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings for Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Ethiop J Health Sci

Specialty Health Services

Date 2024 Dec 30

PMID 39735526

Authors

Abdudin Heru Mehammed

Alemayehu Bedane Worke

Ashenafi Aberra Buser

Semira Abrar Issa

Takele Menna

Tesfaye Kebede Legesse

Assefa Getachew Kebede

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality among men, second only to lung cancer. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) utilizing the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 scoring system effectively stratifies patients by risk and correlates significantly with histopathological outcomes. This study aimed to assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of high-grade PI-RADS v2.1 MRI findings and their correlation with histopathological results from biopsies in patients visiting the interventional radiology unit at St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College (SPHMMC).

Methods: A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted involving patients referred to the SPHMMC interventional radiology unit with high-grade PI-RADS v2.1 MRI findings who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between January 2023 and April 2024.

Results: Among 105 patients, the PPV was 94.5% for a PI-RADS v2.1 score of 5 and 51.5% for a score of 4. These findings underscore the predictive power of high-grade PI-RADS scores, particularly for score 5 lesions, aiding clinicians in decision-making for further investigations and treatment. Significant correlations were observed between MRI characteristics-such as ill-defined margins, larger size, and extraprostatic extension- and high-grade PI-RADS scores in the peripheral zone (p<0.01).

Conclusion: High-grade PI-RADS v2.1 scores exhibit strong positive predictive value for detecting prostate cancer, emphasizing the essential role of multiparametric MRI in diagnosis. Integrating multiparametric MRI findings with clinical and laboratory data can further enhance patient care and outcomes.

References

Turkbey B, Pinto P, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney Y . Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010; 255(1):89-99. PMC: 2843833. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090475. View

Bostwick D, Graham Jr S, Napalkov P, Abrahamsson P, di SantAgnese P, Algaba F . Staging of early prostate cancer: a proposed tumor volume-based prognostic index. Urology. 1993; 41(5):403-11. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(93)90497-x. View

Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F, Sigle A, Gratzke C, Benndorf M . Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021; 25(2):256-263. PMC: 9184264. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1. View

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz A, Haider M, Padhani A, Villeirs G, Macura K . Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019; 76(3):340-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. View

Russo F, Mazzetti S, Regge D, Ambrosini I, Giannini V, Manfredi M . Diagnostic Accuracy of Single-plane Biparametric and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial in Biopsy-naïve Men. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021; 4(6):855-862. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.03.007. View

Ludwig D, Fraum T, Fowler K, Ippolito J . Imaging in Prostate Cancer: Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Beyond. Mo Med. 2018; 115(2):135-141. PMC: 6139856. View

Weinreb J, Barentsz J, Choyke P, Cornud F, Haider M, Macura K . PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(1):16-40. PMC: 6467207. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052. View

Bhayana R, OShea A, Anderson M, Bradley W, Gottumukkala R, Mojtahed A . PI-RADS Versions 2 and 2.1: Interobserver Agreement and Diagnostic Performance in Peripheral and Transition Zone Lesions Among Six Radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 217(1):141-151. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.24199. View

Stamey T, Yemoto C . Examination of the 3 molecular forms of serum prostate specific antigen for distinguishing negative from positive biopsy: relationship to transition zone volume. J Urol. 1999; 163(1):119-26. View

10.

Gupta R, Mahajan M, Sharma P . Correlation between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2, Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels, and Local Staging in Biopsy-Proven Carcinoma Prostate: A Retrospective Study. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2021; 11(1):32-35. PMC: 8025949. DOI: 10.4103/ijabmr.IJABMR_115_20. View

11.

Maurer M, Heverhagen J . Diffusion weighted imaging of the prostate-principles, application, and advances. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(3):490-498. PMC: 5503962. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.05.06. View

12.

Worku T, Mengistu Z, Semahegn A, Tesfaye G . Rehabilitation for cancer patients at Black Lion hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Palliat Care. 2017; 16(1):53. PMC: 5693422. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-017-0235-7. View

13.

Beyer T, Schlemmer H, Weber M, Thierfelder K . PI-RADS 2.1 - Image Interpretation: The Most Important Updates and Their Clinical Implications. Rofo. 2020; 193(7):787-796. DOI: 10.1055/a-1324-4010. View

14.

Zurowska A, Peksa R, Bienkowski M, Skrobisz K, Sowa M, Matuszewski M . Prostate Cancer and Its Mimics-A Pictorial Review. Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(14). PMC: 10378330. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15143682. View

15.

Ali A, Du Feu A, Oliveira P, Choudhury A, Bristow R, Baena E . Prostate zones and cancer: lost in transition?. Nat Rev Urol. 2021; 19(2):101-115. DOI: 10.1038/s41585-021-00524-7. View

16.

Smith C, Turkbey B . PI-RADS v2: Current standing and future outlook. Turk J Urol. 2018; 44(3):189-194. PMC: 5937636. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.12144. View

17.

Liu C, Liu S, Wang Z, Yu K, Feng C, Ke Z . Using the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RIDS v2) to detect prostate cancer can prevent unnecessary biopsies and invasive treatment. Asian J Androl. 2018; 20(5):459-464. PMC: 6116681. DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_19_18. View

18.

Somford D, Hamoen E, Futterer J, van Basten J, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Vreuls W . The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013; 190(5):1728-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021. View

19.

Abreu-Gomez J, Wu M, McInnes M, Thornhill R, Flood T, Schieda N . Shape Analysis of Peripheral Zone Observations on Prostate DWI: Correlation to Histopathology Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 214(6):1239-1247. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.22318. View

20.

Mottet N, van den Bergh R, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2020; 79(2):243-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042. View