Lesion Volume in a Bi- or Multivariate Prediction Model for the Management of PI-RADS v2.1 Score 3 Category Lesions.
Journal
Turkish journal of urology
ISSN: 2149-3235
Titre abrégé: Turk J Urol
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 101643563
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
entrez:
1
8
2022
pubmed:
2
8
2022
medline:
2
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed at improving the discrimination of Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) score 3 suspicious prostate cancer lesions using lesion volume evaluation. Two hundred five PI-RADS v2.1 score 3 lesions were submitted to transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion-targeted biopsy. The lesion volumes were estimated on diffusion-weighted imaging sequence and distributed in PI-RADS 3a (LV < 0.5 mL) and PI-RADS 3b (LV ≥ 0.5 mL) subcategories, using a 0.5 mL cutoff value. Data were retrospectively matched with histopathological findings from the biopsy. Assuming that lesions with LV < or ≥ 0.5 mL were respectively not eligible (benign and indolent PCa lesions) or eligible for biopsy (significant PCa lesions), the diagnostic accuracy of lesion volume in determining clinically significant PCa at biopsy was evaluated using a bi- or multivariate model. About 55.1% and 44.9% of lesions were distributed in subcategories 3a and 3b, respectively. The overall PI-RADS score 3 detection rate was 273%. 3.5% (1.95% of total), and 25% (11.7% of total) significant PCa were found in PI-RADS 3a and 3b subcategory, respectively. The method showed 85.2% sensitivity, 61.2% specificity, 25% positive predictive value, and 96.5% negative predictive value and avoided 55.1% of unnecessary biopsies. The diagnostic accuracy in determining significant PCa at biopsy was 73.2% or 86.5% depending on whether lesion volume was used alone or in combination with prostate volume and patient age in a multivariate model. 0.5 mL lesion volume cutoff value significantly discriminates fusion-targeted biopsy need in PI-RADS v2.1 score 3 lesions and its diagnostic accuracy improves when it combines with prostate volume and age in a multivariate model.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35913442
doi: 10.5152/tud.2022.22038
pmc: PMC9612700
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
268-277Références
Eur Urol. 2014 Nov;66(5):906-12
pubmed: 24361258
J Urol. 1998 Dec;160(6 Pt 2):2407-11
pubmed: 9817393
World J Urol. 2016 Apr;34(4):509-15
pubmed: 26267808
Urol Oncol. 2016 Sep;34(9):415.e13-9
pubmed: 27178729
Future Oncol. 2016 Feb;12(3):399-411
pubmed: 26768791
Eur Urol. 2016 Nov;70(5):846-853
pubmed: 26810346
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Feb 11;21(4):
pubmed: 32053990
J Urol. 2017 Feb;197(2):320-326
pubmed: 27484386
BJU Int. 2017 Jul;120(1):92-103
pubmed: 27608292
Turk J Urol. 2017 Sep;43(3):237-240
pubmed: 28861291
Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):332-40
pubmed: 26995327
Turk J Urol. 2017 Dec;43(4):401-409
pubmed: 29201499
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Aug;211(2):379-382
pubmed: 29894218
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Jun;206(6):1179-83
pubmed: 26913638
BJU Int. 2017 Nov;120 Suppl 3:43-50
pubmed: 28749035
Eur Urol. 2011 Aug;60(2):291-303
pubmed: 21601982
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
BJU Int. 2013 Nov;112 Suppl 2:6-20
pubmed: 24127671
Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):787-94
pubmed: 25240973
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 Mar;22(1):101-109
pubmed: 30127462
Turk J Urol. 2019 Jul 1;45(4):237-244
pubmed: 31291186
JAMA. 1994 Feb 2;271(5):368-74
pubmed: 7506797
Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):22-9
pubmed: 24666839
Curr Urol. 2015 Jul;8(2):96-100
pubmed: 26889125
J Urol. 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 2):1714-20
pubmed: 7523718