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

Joint Authors

Choe, Gheeyoung
Kim, Jung Kwon
Lee, Hak Jong
Hwang, Sung Il
Hong, Sung Kyu

Source

BioMed Research International

Issue

Vol. 2020, Issue 2020 (31 Dec. 2020), pp.1-7, 7 p.

Publisher

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Publication Date

2020-04-02

Country of Publication

Egypt

No. of Pages

7

Main Subjects

Medicine

Abstract EN

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.

American Psychological Association (APA)

Kim, Jung Kwon& Lee, Hak Jong& Hwang, Sung Il& Choe, Gheeyoung& Hong, Sung Kyu. 2020. Comparing Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Category 1 and 2 Groups: Clinical Implication of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging. BioMed Research International،Vol. 2020, no. 2020, pp.1-7.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1132743

Modern Language Association (MLA)

Kim, Jung Kwon…[et al.]. Comparing Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Category 1 and 2 Groups: Clinical Implication of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging. BioMed Research International No. 2020 (2020), pp.1-7.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1132743

American Medical Association (AMA)

Kim, Jung Kwon& Lee, Hak Jong& Hwang, Sung Il& Choe, Gheeyoung& Hong, Sung Kyu. Comparing Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Category 1 and 2 Groups: Clinical Implication of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging. BioMed Research International. 2020. Vol. 2020, no. 2020, pp.1-7.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1132743

Data Type

Journal Articles

Language

English

Notes

Includes bibliographical references

Record ID

BIM-1132743