DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF PI-RADS FOR PROSTATIC MALIGNANCY; NON-INVASIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE PROSTATE GLAND

Authors

  • Hina Hanif Department of Radiology, Benazir Bhutto Hospital, Rawalpindi-Pakistan
  • Ayesha Amin Department of Radiology, Benazir Bhutto Hospital, Rawalpindi-Pakistan
  • Humera Altaf Department of Surgery, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad-Pakistan
  • Lubna Meraj Benazir Bhutto Hospital, Rawalpindi-Pakistan,
  • Fareya Usmani Department of Surgery, United Medical and Dental College, Karachi-Pakistan
  • Nadia Shams Department of Medicine, RIHS, Islamabad-Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-S4-13563

Keywords:

Prostate Cancer, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, PI-RADS, Sensitivity

Abstract

Background: The use of multi-parametric (mp) MRI for the detection and characterization of prostate lesions has evolved over the last decade. This study was conducted to determine the diagnostic accuracy of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in diagnosing prostatic malignancy, taking histopathology as gold standard. Methods: A cross-sectional validation study was conducted in Dept. of Radiology, Benazir Bhutto Hospital Rawalpindi from March 10th to June 10th 2024. Total 120 patients with suspected prostate malignancy (50–80 years’ age) were included. Patients with known allergy to Gadolinium based MRI contrast agent, Impaired renal function (GFR<30 ml/min) and claustrophobia were excluded. The MRI examinations were done in all cases on 1.5 Tesla MRI unit with body coil coupled to endorectal coil in the supine position. The PI-RADS findings were interpreted by consultant radiologist for prostatic malignancy. All patients were undergone biopsy in the concerned ward and tissue was sent to institutional laboratory for histopathology. Histopathology report was compared with PI-RADS findings. Results: The Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS in diagnosing prostatic malignancy, taking histopathology as gold standard was 85.51%, 84.31%, 88.06%, 81.13% and 85.0% respectively. Conclusion: This study concluded that PI-RADS is the non-invasive modality of choice with high diagnostic accuracy in detecting prostate cancer, and has dramatically improved our diagnostic and prognostic ability.

References

1. Zhen L, Liu X, Yegang C, Yongjiao Y, Yawei X, Jiaqi K, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2019;19(1):1244.

2. Brembilla G, Dell'Oglio P, Stabile A. Interreader variability in prostate MRI reporting using prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1. Eur Radiol 2020;30:3383–92.

3. Fusco R, Sansone M, Granata V, Setola SV, Petrillo A. A systematic review on multiparametric MR imaging in prostate cancer detection. Infec Agents Cancer 2017;12(1):57.

4. Byun J, Park KJ, Kim MH, Kim JK. Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and 2.1 in transition zone lesions for detection of prostate cancer: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;52(2):577–86.

5. Wei CG, Zhang YY, Pan P, Chen T, Yu HC, Dai GC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of PI-RADS version 2 and version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancers. Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:1247–56.

6. Gupta RT, Mehta KA, Turkbey B, Verma S. PI-RADS: past, present, and future. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;52(1):33–53.

7. Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate imaging-reporting and data system steering committee. prostate imaging-reporting and data system steering committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. Eur Urol 2019;75(3):385–96.

8. El-Kareem HA, El-Samei A, Amin MF, Hassan EE. Assessment of the accuracy of multi-parametric MRI with PI-RADS 2.0 scoring system in the discrimination of suspicious prostatic focal lesions. Egyptian J Radiol Nuclear Med 2016;47(3):1075–82.

9. Alistair DR, Manik SC, Rick P. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scores in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int 2015;115(5):728–35.

10. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Muellner A, Hricak H. MR imaging of the prostate in clinical practice. MAGMA 2008;21(6):379–92.

11. Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ. PI-RADS Version 2: A pictorial update. Radiographics 2016;36(5):1354–72.

12. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):746–757.

13. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, Thoeny HC, Tempany CM, Shtern F, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 2016;69(1):41–49.

14. Steiger P, Thoeny HC. Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging 2016;16:9.

15. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM, 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. Eur Urol 2014;66(2):343–51.

16. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389(10071):815–22.

17. Grey AD, Chana MS, Popert R, Wolfe K, Liyanage SH, Acher PL. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int 2015;115(5):728–735.

18. Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, et al. The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2016;195(5):1428–35.

19. Engelhard K, Kuhn R, Osten A, Bogner K, Dworak A, Lubke L, et al. Impact of magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy in the supine position on the detection of significant prostate cancer in an inhomogeneous patient cohort. Scand J Urol 2016;50(2):110–15.

20. Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT, Cho NH, Choi YD, Rha KH, et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology 2016;280(1):108–16.

21. Zhang L, Tang M, Chen S. A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2017;27:5204.

22. Seo JW, Shin SJ, Taik OhY. PI-RADS version 2: detection of clinically significant cancer in patients with biopsy gleason score 6 prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;209(1):W1–9.

23. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney YL, et al. Prostate cancer: Value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 2010;255:89–99.

24. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: A meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:343–51.

25. Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, Charman SC, Anastasiadis E, Freeman A, et al. The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level-can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol Oncol 2014;32:45.e17–22.

26. Itatani R, Namimoto T, Atsuji S, Katahira K, Morishita S, Kitani K, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: Outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:1740–5.

27. Shakir NA, George AK, Siddiqui MM, Rothwax JT, Rais-Bahrami S, Stamatakis L, et al. Identification of threshold prostate specific antigen levels to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy. J Urol 2014;192:1642–9.

28. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, Beuvon F, Liberatore M, Zerbib M, 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. BJU Int 2011;107:1411–18.

29. Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Feuth T, Witjes JA, et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: Detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2013;266:207–17.

30. Jung SI, Donati OF, Vargas HA, Goldman D, Hricak H, Akin O. Transition zone prostate cancer: Incremental value of diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2013;269:493–503.

31. Cornud F, Khoury G, Bouazza N, Beuvon F, Peyromaure M, Flam T, et al. Tumor target volume for focal therapy of prostate cancer-does multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging allow for a reliable estimation? J Urol 2014;191:1272–9.

32. Rosenkrantz AB, Mendrinos S, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. J Urol 2012;187:2032–8.

Published

2024-12-16

How to Cite

Hanif , H., Amin, A., Altaf, H., Meraj, L., Usmani, F., & Shams, N. (2024). DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF PI-RADS FOR PROSTATIC MALIGNANCY; NON-INVASIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE PROSTATE GLAND. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 36(4 (Suppl 1). https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-S4-13563

Issue

Vol. 36 No. 4 (Suppl 1) (2024): JOURNAL OF AYUB MEDICAL COLLEGE ABBOTTABAD

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Hina Hanif , Ayesha Amin, Humera Altaf, Lubna Meraj, Fareya Usmani, Nadia Shams

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License  CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.

USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.