Optimized MRI Assessment for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A STARD‐Compliant Two‐Center Study

Background There is a requirement for a personalized strategy to make MRI more accessible to men with suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC). Purpose To evaluate an optimized (Op)‐MRI compared with biparametric (Bp)‐MRI and multiparametric (Mp)‐MRI for the diagnosis of CSPC. Stud...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of magnetic resonance imaging Vol. 53; no. 4; pp. 1210 - 1219
Main Authors: Bao, Jie, Zhi, Rui, Hou, Ying, Zhang, Jing, Wu, Chen‐Jiang, Wang, Xi‐Ming, Zhang, Yu‐Dong
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.04.2021
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects:
Biopsy
biparametric MRI
Cancer surgery
Clinical significance
clinically significant prostate cancer
Diagnosis
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Field strength
Humans
Lesions
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Medical imaging
multiparametric MRI
optimized MRI
Prostate cancer
prostate imaging reporting and data system
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Retrospective Studies
Scanners
Statistical analysis
Statistical tests
multiparametric MRI
biparametric MRI
optimized MRI
prostate imaging reporting and data system
clinically significant prostate cancer
ISSN:1053-1807, 1522-2586, 1522-2586
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background There is a requirement for a personalized strategy to make MRI more accessible to men with suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC). Purpose To evaluate an optimized (Op)‐MRI compared with biparametric (Bp)‐MRI and multiparametric (Mp)‐MRI for the diagnosis of CSPC. Study Type Two‐center, retrospective. Subjects A total of 346 patients from center 1 and 292 patients from center 2. Field Strength/Sequence 3.0T scanners, T2‐weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) imaging. Assessment Four radiologists interpreted the Bp‐MRI (T2WI and DWI) and Mp‐MRI (T2WI, DWI, and DCE) independently according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS). For Op‐MRI, two radiologists used an adjusted decision rule on Bp‐MRI‐assessed PI‐RADS 3 lesions by determining early enhancement of DCE. Pathologies at biopsy and/or prostatectomy specimens were used as standard references. Statistical Tests Performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Kappa statistics were used to assess interobserver variability. Results Interreader agreement was excellent for all three MRI assessments (all κ values >0.80). Op‐MRI had comparable sensitivity (senior/junior: 90.9% [261/287] / 91.6% [263/287]) and higher specificity (78.1% [274/351] /74.4% [261/351]) compared with Mp‐MRI (sensitivity: 92.3% [265/287] / 93.7% [269/287]; specificity: 67.8% [238/351] / 68.1% [239/351]) and Bp‐MRI (sensitivity: 91.6% [263/287] / 93.4% [268/287]; specificity: 71.2% [250/351] / 70.1% [246/351]) for the diagnosis of CSPC. Compared to Mp‐MRI, Op‐MRI spared biopsy in 80.7% (515/638) of DCE scans with similar performance accuracy. Compared to Bp‐MRI, Op‐MRI downgraded 25.2% (31/123) of lesions at a cost of missing 6.5% (3/46) of malignancies, and upgraded 45.5% (56/123) of lesions with a positive predictive value of 62.5% (35/56) in 123 equivocal findings. Data Conclusion The Op‐MRI, using an adjusted PI‐RADS decision rule, did not compromise diagnostic accuracy with sparing biopsy in 80.7% of DCE scans compared to Mp‐MRI, and outperformed Bp‐MRI by regrading PI‐RADS lesions. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 2
Bibliography:Jie Bao and Rui Zhi are co‐first authors.
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1053-1807
1522-2586
1522-2586
DOI:10.1002/jmri.27394