Value of extra‐target prostate biopsy for the detection of magnetic resonance imaging‐missed adverse pathology according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores: Spatial analysis using magnetic resonance–ultrasound fusion images

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (9) ◽  
pp. 760-766
Author(s):  
Yoh Matsuoka ◽  
Sho Uehara ◽  
Soichiro Yoshida ◽  
Hiroshi Tanaka ◽  
Hajime Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Spatial Analysis ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Data System ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Fusion Images

scholarly journals Comparing Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Category 1 and 2 Groups: Clinical Implication of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Jung Kwon Kim ◽  
Hak Jong Lee ◽  
Sung Il Hwang ◽  
Gheeyoung Choe ◽  
Sung Kyu Hong
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Data System ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Gleason Pattern ◽  
Clinical Databases

Objectives. To evaluate the clinicopathological differences between Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2) category 1 and 2 groups. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed our two institutional clinical databases: (1) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fusion biopsy cohort (n=706) and (2) radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort (n=1403). Subsequently, we performed comparative analyses between PI-RADSv2 category 1 and 2 groups. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as the presence of Gleason score GS≥3+4 in a single biopsy core, and adverse pathology (AP) was defined as high-grade (primary Gleason pattern 4 or any pattern 5) and/or non-organ-confined disease (pT3/N1). We also performed multivariate logistic regression analyses for AP. Results. In the TRUS/MRI fusion biopsy cohort, no significant differences in detection rates of all cancer (18.2% vs. 29.0%, respectively, P=0.730) or csPCa (9.1% vs. 9.9%, respectively, P=0.692) were observed between PI-RADSv2 category 1 and 2 groups. There were no significant differences in pathologic outcomes including Gleason score (≥4+3, 21.2% vs. 29.9%, respectively, P=0.420) or detection rate of AP (27.3% vs. 33.8%, respectively, P=0.561) between the two groups in the RP cohort either. PI-RADSv2 category 1 or 2 had no significant association with AP, even in univariate analysis (P=0.299). Conclusions. PI-RADSv2 categories 1 and 2 had similar performance to predict clinicopathological outcomes. Consequently, these two categories may be unified into a single category. Negative mpMRI does not guarantee the absence of AP, as with csPCa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document