Direct Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Experience

An artificial intelligence model based on transrectal ultrasound images of biopsy needle tract tissues to differentiate prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model based on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) images of biopsy needle tract (BNT) tissues for predicting prostate cancer (PCa) and to compare the PCa diagnostic performance of the radiologist model and clinical model.

METHODS

A total of 1696 2D prostate TRUS images were involved from 142 patients between July 2021 and May 2022. The ResNet50 network model was utilized to train classification models with different input methods: original image (Whole model), BNT (Needle model), and combined image [Feature Pyramid Networks (FPN) model]. The training set, validation set, and test set were randomly assigned, then randomized 5-fold cross-validation between the training set and validation set was performed. The diagnostic effectiveness of AI models and image combination was accessed by an independent testing set. Then, the optimal AI model and image combination were selected to compare the diagnostic efficacy with that of senior radiologists and the clinical model.

RESULTS

In the test set, the area under the curve, specificity, and sensitivity of the FPN model were 0.934, 0.966, and 0.829, respectively; the diagnostic efficacy was improved compared with the Whole and Needle models, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05), and was better than that of senior radiologists (area under the curve: 0.667). The FPN model detected more PCa compared with senior physicians (82.9% vs. 55.8%), with a 61.3% decrease in the false-positive rate and a 23.2% increase in overall accuracy (0.887 vs. 0.655).

CONCLUSION

The proposed FPN model can offer a new method for prostate tissue classification, improve the diagnostic performance, and may be a helpful tool to guide prostate biopsy.

PI-RADS Version 2.0 Versus Version 2.1: Comparison of Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Upgrade and Downgrade Rates From MRI-Targeted Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND. Precise risk stratification through MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) can guide optimal prostate cancer (PCa) management. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare PI-RADS version 2.0 (v2.0) and PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) in terms of the rates of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) upgrade and downgrade from TBx to radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS. This study entailed a retrospective post hoc analysis of patients who underwent 3-T prostate MRI at a single institution from May 2015 to March 2023 as part of three prospective clinical trials. Trial participants who underwent MRI followed by MRI/US fusion-guided TBx and RP within a 1-year interval were identified. A single genitourinary radiologist performed clinical interpretations of the MRI examinations using PI-RADS v2.0 from May 2015 to March 2019 and PI-RADS v2.1 from April 2019 to March 2023. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were compared using chi-square tests. Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP GG2 or greater. RESULTS. The final analysis included 308 patients (median age, 65 years; median PSA density, 0.16 ng/mL2). The v2.0 group (n = 177) and v2.1 group (n = 131) showed no significant difference in terms of upgrade rate (29% vs 22%, respectively; p = .15), downgrade rate (19% vs 21%, p = .76), clinically significant upgrade rate (14% vs 10%, p = .27), or clinically significant downgrade rate (1% vs 1%, p > .99). The upgrade rate and downgrade rate were also not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups when stratifying by index lesion PI-RADS category or index lesion zone, as well as when assessed only in patients without a prior PCa diagnosis (all p > .01). Among patients with GG2 or GG3 at RP (n = 121 for v2.0; n = 103 for v2.1), the concordance rate between TBx and RP was not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups (53% vs 57%, p = .51). CONCLUSION. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were not significantly different between patients whose MRI examinations were clinically interpreted using v2.0 or v2.1. CLINICAL IMPACT. Implementation of the most recent PI-RADS update did not improve the incongruence in PCa grade assessment between TBx and surgery.

Enhancing Prostate Cancer Diagnosis with a Novel Artificial Intelligence-Based Web Application: Synergizing Deep Learning Models, Multimodal Data, and Insights from Usability Study with Pathologists

Prostate cancer remains a significant cause of male cancer mortality in the United States, with an estimated 288,300 new cases in 2023. Accurate grading of prostate cancer is crucial for ascertaining disease severity and shaping treatment strategies. Modern deep learning techniques show promise in grading biopsies, but there is a gap in integrating these advances into clinical practice. Our web platform tackles this challenge by integrating human expertise with AI-driven grading, incorporating diverse data sources. We gathered feedback from four pathologists and one medical practitioner to assess usability and real-world alignment through a survey and the NASA TLX Usability Test. Notably, 60% of users found it easy to navigate, rating it 5.5 out of 7 for ease of understanding. Users appreciated self-explanatory information in popup tabs. For ease of use, all users favored the detailed summary tab, rating it 6.5 out of 7. While 80% felt patient demographics beyond age were unnecessary, high-resolution biopsy images were deemed vital. Acceptability was high, with all users willing to adopt the app, and some believed it could reduce workload. The NASA TLX Usability Test indicated a low-moderate perceived workload, suggesting room for improved explanations and data visualization.

Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection and Investigation of Multiparametric MRI-derived Markers

Background Data regarding the prospective performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 alone and in combination with quantitative MRI features for prostate cancer detection is limited. Purpose To assess lesion-based clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) rates in different PI-RADS version 2.1 categories and to identify MRI features that could improve csPCa detection. Materials and Methods This single-center prospective study included men with suspected or known prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric MRI and MRI/US-guided biopsy from April 2019 to December 2021. MRI scans were prospectively evaluated using PI-RADS version 2.1. Atypical transition zone (TZ) nodules were upgraded to category 3 if marked diffusion restriction was present. Lesions with an International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade of 2 or higher (range, 1-5) were considered csPCa. MRI features, including three-dimensional diameter, relative lesion volume (lesion volume divided by prostate volume), sphericity, and surface to volume ratio (SVR), were obtained from lesion contours delineated by the radiologist. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted at the lesion and participant levels to determine features associated with csPCa. Results In total, 454 men (median age, 67 years [IQR, 62-73 years]) with 838 lesions were included. The csPCa rates for lesions categorized as PI-RADS 1 (n = 3), 2 (n = 170), 3 (n = 197), 4 (n = 319), and 5 (n = 149) were 0%, 9%, 14%, 37%, and 77%, respectively. csPCa rates of PI-RADS 4 lesions were lower than PI-RADS 5 lesions (P < .001) but higher than PI-RADS 3 lesions (P < .001). Upgraded PI-RADS 3 TZ lesions were less likely to harbor csPCa compared with their nonupgraded counterparts (4% [one of 26] vs 20% [20 of 99], P = .02). Predictors of csPCa included relative lesion volume (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P < .001), SVR (OR, 6.2; P = .02), and extraprostatic extension (EPE) scores of 2 (OR, 9.3; P < .001) and 3 (OR, 4.1; P = .02). Conclusion The rates of csPCa differed between consecutive PI-RADS categories of 3 and higher. MRI features, including lesion volume, shape, and EPE scores of 2 and 3, predicted csPCa. Upgrading of PI-RADS category 3 TZ lesions may result in unnecessary biopsies. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT03354416 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Goh in this issue.

A multicenter study of artificial intelligence-aided software for detecting visible clinically significant prostate cancer on mpMRI

BACKGROUND

AI-based software may improve the performance of radiologists when detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). This study aims to compare the performance of radiologists in detecting MRI-visible csPCa on MRI with and without AI-based software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 480 multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) images were retrospectively collected from eleven different MR devices, with 349 csPCa lesions in 180 (37.5%) cases. The csPCa areas were annotated based on pathology. Sixteen radiologists from four hospitals participated in reading. Each radiologist was randomly assigned to 30 cases and diagnosed twice. Half cases were interpreted without AI, and the other half were interpreted with AI. After four weeks, the cases were read again in switched mode. The mean diagnostic performance was compared using sensitivity and specificity on lesion level and patient level. The median reading time and diagnostic confidence were assessed.

RESULTS

On lesion level, AI-aided improved the sensitivity from 40.1% to 59.0% (18.9% increased; 95% confidence interval (CI) [11.5, 26.1]; p < .001). On patient level, AI-aided improved the specificity from 57.7 to 71.7% (14.0% increase, 95% CI [6.4, 21.4]; p < .001) while preserving the sensitivity (88.3% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.06). AI-aided reduced the median reading time of one case by 56.3% from 423 to 185 s (238-s decrease, 95% CI [219, 260]; p < .001), and the median diagnostic confidence score was increased by 10.3% from 3.9 to 4.3 (0.4-score increase, 95% CI [0.3, 0.5]; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

AI software improves the performance of radiologists by reducing false positive detection of prostate cancer patients and also improving reading times and diagnostic confidence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study involves the process of data collection, randomization and crossover reading procedure.

Characterization of high-grade prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI: assessment of PI-RADS version 2.1 and version 2 descriptors across 21 readers with varying experience (MULTI study)

OBJECTIVE

To assess PI-RADSv2.1 and PI-RADSv2 descriptors across readers with varying experience.

METHODS

Twenty-one radiologists (7 experienced (≥ 5 years) seniors, 7 less experienced seniors and 7 juniors) assessed 240 'predefined' lesions from 159 pre-biopsy multiparametric prostate MRIs. They specified their location (peripheral, transition or central zone) and size, and scored them using PI-RADSv2.1 and PI-RADSv2 descriptors. They also described and scored 'additional' lesions if needed. Per-lesion analysis assessed the 'predefined' lesions, using targeted biopsy as reference; per-lobe analysis included 'predefined' and 'additional' lesions, using combined systematic and targeted biopsy as reference. Areas under the curve (AUCs) quantified the performance in diagnosing clinically significant cancer (csPCa; ISUP ≥ 2 cancer). Kappa coefficients (κ) or concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) assessed inter-reader agreement.

RESULTS

At per-lesion analysis, inter-reader agreement on location and size was moderate-to-good (κ = 0.60-0.73) and excellent (CCC ≥ 0.80), respectively. Agreement on PI-RADSv2.1 scoring was moderate (κ = 0.43-0.47) for seniors and fair (κ = 0.39) for juniors. Using PI-RADSv2.1, juniors obtained a significantly lower AUC (0.74; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.70-0.79) than experienced seniors (0.80; 95%CI 0.76-0.84; p = 0.008) but not than less experienced seniors (0.74; 95%CI 0.70-0.78; p = 0.75). As compared to PI-RADSv2, PI-RADSv2.1 downgraded 17 lesions/reader (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-29), of which 2 (IQR: 1-3) were csPCa; it upgraded 4 lesions/reader (IQR: 2-7), of which 1 (IQR: 0-2) was csPCa. Per-lobe analysis, which included 60 (IQR: 25-73) 'additional' lesions/reader, yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience significantly impacted lesion characterization using PI-RADSv2.1 descriptors. As compared to PI-RADSv2, PI-RADSv2.1 tended to downgrade non-csPCa lesions, but this effect was small and variable across readers.

Comparison of quantitative parameters and radiomic features as inputs into machine learning models to predict the Gleason score of prostate cancer lesions

INTRODUCTION

The classification of prostate cancer (PCa) lesions using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) suffers from poor inter-reader agreement. This study compared quantitative parameters or radiomic features from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) or positron emission tomography (PET), as inputs into machine learning (ML) to predict the Gleason scores (GS) of detected lesions for improved PCa lesion classification.

METHODS

20 biopsy-confirmed PCa subjects underwent imaging before radical prostatectomy. A pathologist assigned GS from tumour tissue. Two radiologists and one nuclear medicine physician delineated the lesions on the mpMR and PET images, yielding 45 lesion inputs. Seven quantitative parameters were extracted from the lesions, namely T2-weighted (T2w) image intensity, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), transfer constant (K^TRANS), efflux rate constant (K_ep), and extracellular volume ratio (V_e) from mpMR images, and SUV_mean and SUV_max from PET images. Eight radiomic features were selected out of 109 radiomic features from T2w, ADC and PET images. Quantitative parameters or radiomic features, with risk factors of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density and volume, of 45 different lesion inputs were input in different combinations into four ML models - Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine (SVM), k-Nearest-Neighbour (kNN), Ensembles model (EM).

RESULTS

SUV_max yielded the highest accuracy in discriminating detected lesions. Among the 4 ML models, kNN yielded the highest accuracies of 0.929 using either quantitative parameters or radiomic features with risk factors as input.

CONCLUSIONS

ML models' performance is dependent on the input combinations and risk factors further improve ML classification accuracy.

The diagnostic performance in clinically significant prostate cancer with PI-RADS version 2.1: simplified bpMRI versus standard mpMRI

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic performance for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) between bpMRI with only axial T2WI (simplified bpMRI) and standard-multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).

METHODS

A total of 569 patients who underwent mpMRI followed by biopsy or prostatectomy were enrolled in this retrospective study. According to PI-RADS v2.1, three radiologists (A, B, C) from three centers blinded to clinical variables were assigned scores on lesions with simplified bpMRI and then with mpMRI 2 weeks later. Diagnostic performance of simplified bpMRI was compared with mpMRI using histopathology as reference standard.

RESULTS

For all the three radiologists, the diagnostic sensitivity was significantly higher with mpMRI than with simplified bpMRI (P < 0.001 to P = 0.035); and although specificity was also higher with mpMRI than with simplified bpMRI for radiologist B and radiologist C, it was statistically significant only for radiologist B (P = 0.011, P = 0.359, respectively). On the contrary, for radiologist A, specificity was higher with simplified bpMRI than with mpMRI (P = 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was significantly higher for mpMRI than for simplified bpMRI except for radiologist A (radiologist A: 0.903 vs 0.913, P = 0.1542; radiologist B: 0.861 vs 0.834 P = 0.0013; and radiologist C: 0.884 vs 0.848, P = 0.0003). Interobserver reliability of PI-RADS v2.1 showed good agreement for both simplified bpMRI (kappa = 0.665) and mpMRI (kappa = 0.739).

CONCLUSION

Although the detection of csPCa with simplified bpMRI was comparatively lower than that with mpMRI, the diagnostic performance was still high in simplified bpMRI. Our data justify using mpMRI outperforms simplified bpMRI for prostate cancer screening and imply simplified bpMRI as a potential screening tool.

[Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v 2.1: Overview and Critical Points]

The technical parameters and imaging interpretation criteria of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) are updated in PI-RADS v2.1. These changes have been an expected improvement for prostate cancer evaluation, although some issues remain unsolved, and new issues have been raised. In this review, a brief overview of PI-RADS v2.1 is and several critical points are discussed as follows: the need for more detailed protocols of mpMRI, lack of validation of the revised transition zone interpretation criteria, the need for clarification for the revised diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria, anterior fibromuscular stroma and central zone assessment, assessment of background signal and tumor aggressiveness, changes in the structured report, the need for the parameters for imaging quality and performance control, and indications for expansion of the system to include other indications.

Amide Proton Transfer Could Provide More Accurate Lesion Characterization in the Transition Zone of the Prostate

BACKGROUND

There is an overlap comparing transition zone prostate cancer (TZ PCa) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), creating additional challenges for assessment of TZ tumors on MRI.

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether amide proton transfer-weighted (APTw) imaging provides new diagnostic ideas for TZ PCa.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective.

POPULATION

A total of 51 TZ PCa patients (age, 49-89), 44 stromal BPH (age, 57-92), and 45 glandular BPH patients (age, 56-92).

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

A 3 T; T2WI turbo spin echo (TSE), quantitative T2*-weighted imaging, DWI echo planar imaging, 3D APTw TSE.

ASSESSMENT

Differences in APTw, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and T2* among three lesions were compared by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Regions of interest were drawn by two radiologists (X.Q.Z. and X.Y.Q., with 21 and 15 years of experience, respectively).

STATISTICAL TESTS

Multivariable logistic regression analyses; ANOVA with post hoc testing; receiver operator characteristic curve analysis; Delong test. Significance level: P < 0.05.

RESULTS

APTw among TZ PCa, stromal BPH, and glandular BPH (3.48% ± 0.83% vs. 2.76% ± 0.49% vs. 2.72% ± 0.45%, respectively) were significantly different except between stromal BPH and glandular BPH (P > 0.99). Significant differences were found in ADC (TZ PCa 0.76 ± 0.16 × 10^-3  mm² /sec vs. stromal BPH 0.91 ± 0.14 × 10^-3  mm² /sec vs. glandular BPH 1.08 ± 0.18 × 10^-3  mm² /sec) among three lesions. APTw (OR = 12.18, 11.80, respectively) and 1/ADC (OR = 703.87, 181.11, respectively) were independent predictors of TZ PCa from BPH and stromal BPH. The combination of APTw and ADC had better diagnostic performance in the identification of TZ PCa from BPH and stromal BPH.

DATA CONCLUSION

APTw imaging has the potential to be of added value to ADC in differentiating TZ PCa from BPH and stromal BPH.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Fully automated detection and localization of clinically significant prostate cancer on MR images using a cascaded convolutional neural network

Purpose

To develop a cascaded deep learning model trained with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) for fully automated detection and localization of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

Methods

This retrospective study included 347 consecutive patients (235 csPCa, 112 non-csPCa) with high-quality prostate MRI data, which were randomly selected for training, validation, and testing. The ground truth was obtained using manual csPCa lesion segmentation, according to pathological results. The proposed cascaded model based on Res-UNet takes prostate MR images (T2WI+ADC or only ADC) as inputs and automatically segments the whole prostate gland, the anatomic zones, and the csPCa region step by step. The performance of the models was evaluated and compared with PI-RADS (version 2.1) assessment using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) in the held-out test set.

Results

In the test set, the per-lesion sensitivity of the biparametric (ADC + T2WI) model, ADC model, and PI-RADS assessment were 95.5% (84/88), 94.3% (83/88), and 94.3% (83/88) respectively (all p > 0.05). Additionally, the mean DSC based on the csPCa lesions were 0.64 ± 0.24 and 0.66 ± 0.23 for the biparametric model and ADC model, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the biparametric model were 95.6% (108/113), 91.5% (665/727), and 92.0% (773/840) based on sextant, and were 98.6% (68/69), 64.8% (46/71), and 81.4% (114/140) based on patients. The biparametric model had a similar performance to PI-RADS assessment (p > 0.05) and had higher specificity than the ADC model (86.8% [631/727], p< 0.001) based on sextant.

Conclusion

The cascaded deep learning model trained with ADC and T2WI achieves good performance for automated csPCa detection and localization.

Inter-reader agreement of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version v2.1 for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

We aimed to systematically assess the inter-reader agreement of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version (PI-RADS) v2.1 for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

We included studies reporting inter-reader agreement of different radiologists that applied PI-RADS v2.1 for the detection of PCa. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed with the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies. The summary estimates of the inter-reader agreement were pooled with the random-effect model and categorized (from slight to almost perfect) according to the kappa (κ) value. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to explore various clinical settings.

Results

A total of 12 studies comprising 2475 patients were included. The pooled inter-reader agreement for whole gland was κ=0.65 (95% CI 0.56-0.73), and for transitional zone (TZ) lesions was κ=0.62 (95% CI 0.51-0.72). There was substantial heterogeneity presented throughout the studies (I²= 95.6%), and meta-regression analyses revealed that only readers’ experience (<5 years vs. ≥5 years) was the significant factor associated with heterogeneity (P<0.01). In studies providing head-to-head comparison, there was no significant difference in inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and v2.0 for both the whole gland (0.64 vs. 0.57, p=0.37), and TZ (0.61 vs. 0.59, p=0.81).

Conclusions

PI-RADS v2.1 demonstrated substantial inter-reader agreement among radiologists for whole gland and TZ lesions. However, the difference in agreement between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 was not significant for the whole gland or the TZ.

Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation Was Used in Conjunction with Prostate PI-RADS v2.1 Score Has Diagnostic Relevance for Benign and Malignant Prostate Lesions

Objective

To assess the diagnostic usefulness of magic in conjunction with PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate cancer malignant foci.

Methods

A total of 202 lesions (97 transitional zone lesions and 105 peripheral zone lesions) from 198 people were investigated retrospectively using traditional MRI and magic images. Each lesion has a unique pathological consequence. Lesions T1, T2, and PD values were employed as magic observation markers. The locations of the lesions were aggregated, and the paired t-test and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) were employed to find the indices with statistical significance in separating benign from malignant prostatic nodules (+1 point) and (−1 point) respectively. Draw a ROC curve and compare it to the PI-RADS v2.1 score using the magic positive and negative indices as well as the PI-RADS v2.1 score. By comparing the ROC curves scored separately, the diagnostic efficiency of the two scoring approaches for benign and malignant prostate lesions was investigated.

Results

T2 value has the highest diagnostic efficiency among the magic observation indices. T2 value of 77 ms for transitional zone lesions and T2 value of 89 ms for peripheral zone lesions are positive indices, whereas T2 value >77 ms and T2 value >89 ms are negative indexes. PI-RADS v2.1 combines one score and magic. In the transitional zone, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the two scoring methods were 57.52, 87.70, 76.70, and 74.6 percent and 82.50, 73.68, 95.5, and 74.7 percent, respectively, and the AUC values were 0.735 and 0.846, respectively (P = 0.004); in the peripheral zone, the AUC values were 86.15 percent, 68.42 percent, 82.4.

Conclusions

Magic T2 value is a favorable sign for diagnosing benign and malignant prostate cancers when used in conjunction with PI-RADS v2.1. The end product exceeds PI-RADS v2.1 on its own, which is more useful in identifying benign and malignant prostate lesions, decreasing unnecessary puncture and alleviating patient pain.

Paradigm Shift in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Pre-Biopsy Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy

With regard to the indolent clinical characteristics of prostate cancer (PCa), the more selective detection of clinically significant PCa (CSC) has been emphasized in its diagnosis and management. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has advanced technically, and recent international cooperation has provided a standardized imaging and reporting system for prostate MRI. Accordingly, prostate MRI has recently been investigated and utilized as a triage tool before biopsy to guide tissue sampling to increase the detection rate of CSC beyond the staging tool for patients in whom PCa was already confirmed on conventional systematic biopsy. Radiologists must understand the current paradigm shift for better PCa diagnosis and management. This article reviewed the recent literature, demonstrating the diagnostic value of pre-biopsy prostate MRI with targeted biopsy and discussed unsolved issues regarding the paradigm shift in the diagnosis of PCa.

PI-RADS v2.1 Combined With Prostate-Specific Antigen Density for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Peripheral Zone

Purpose

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of combining the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring system v2.1 with prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) to detect prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

A total of 266 participants with suspicion of PCa underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in our hospital, after at least 4 weeks all patients underwent subsequent systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy or MRI-TRUS fusion targeted biopsy. All mpMRI images were scored in accordance with the PI-RADS v2.1, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of PCa.

Results

A total of 119 patients were diagnosed with PCa in the biopsy, of them 101 patients were diagnosed with clinically significant PCa. The multivariate analysis revealed that PI-RADS v2.1 and PSAD were independent predictors for PCa. For peripheral zone (PZ), the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the combination of PI-RADS score and PSAD was 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.96), which is significantly superior to using PI-RADS score (0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.93, P=0.031) and PSAD alone (0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.90, P=0.037). For transition zone (TZ), however, the combination model was not significantly superior to PI-RADS alone, with AUC of 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.99) vs. 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.97, P=0.186).

Conclusion

The combination of PI-RADS v2.1 with PSAD could significantly improve the diagnostic performance of PCa in PZ. Nevertheless, no significant improvement was observed regarding PCa in TZ.

Comparison of Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System V2.0 and V2.1 for Evaluation of Transition Zone Lesions: A 5-Reader 202-Patient Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the distribution of Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) scores, interreader agreement, and diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 for transition zone (TZ) lesions.

METHODS

The study included 202 lesions in 202 patients who underwent 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging showing a TZ lesion that was later biopsied with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion. Five abdominal imaging faculty reviewed T2-weighted imaging and high b value/apparent diffusion coefficient images in 2 sessions. Cases were randomized using a crossover design whereby half in the first session were reviewed using v2.0 and the other half using v2.1, and vice versa for the 2nd session. Readers provided T2-weighted imaging and DWI scores, from which PI-RADS scores were derived.

RESULTS

Interreader agreement for all PI-RADS scores had κ of 0.37 (v2.0) and 0.26 (v2.1). For 4 readers, the percentage of lesions retrospectively scored PI-RADS 1 increased greater than 5% and PI-RADS 2 score decreased greater than 5% from v2.0 to v2.1. For 2 readers, the percentage scored PI-RADS 3 decreased greater than 5% and, for 2 readers, increased greater than 5%. The percentage of PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions changed less than 5% for all readers. For the 4 readers with increased frequency of PI-RADS 1 using v2.1, 4% to 16% were Gleason score ≥3 + 4 tumor. Frequency of Gleason score ≥3 + 4 in PI-RADS 3 lesions increased for 2 readers and decreased for 1 reader. Sensitivity of PI-RADS of 3 or greater for Gleason score ≥3 + 4 ranged 76% to 90% (v2.0) and 69% to 96% (v2.1). Specificity ranged 32% to 64% (v2.0) and 25% to 72% (v2.1). Positive predictive value ranged 43% to 55% (v2.0) and 41% to 58% (v2.1). Negative predictive value ranged 82% to 87% (v2.0) and 81% to 91% (v2.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor interreader agreement and lack of improvement in diagnostic performance indicate an ongoing need to refine evaluation of TZ lesions.

Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.1, in comparison with v. 2.

METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. 77 consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists) independently scored eight regions [six peripheral zones (PZ) and two transition zones (TZ)] using v. 2.1 and v. 2. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics. To evaluate diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), area under the curve (AUC) was estimated.

RESULTS

228 regions were pathologically diagnosed as positive for csPC. With a cut-off ≥3, the agreement among all readers was better with v. 2.1 than v. 2 in TZ, PZ, or both zones combined (κ-value: TZ, 0.509 vs 0.414; PZ, 0.686 vs 0.568; both zones combined, 0.644 vs 0.531). With a cut-off ≥4, the agreement among all readers was also better with v. 2.1 than v. 2 in the PZ or both zones combined (κ-value: PZ, 0.761 vs 0.701; both zones combined, 0.756 vs 0.709). For all readers, AUC with v. 2.1 was higher than with v. 2 (TZ, 0.826-0.907 vs 0.788-0.856; PZ, 0.857-0.919 vs 0.853-0.902).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that the PI-RADS v. 2.1 could improve the interreader agreement and might contribute to improved diagnostic performance compared with v. 2.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a potential to improve interreader variability and diagnostic performance among radiologists with different levels of expertise.

Comparison of diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing diagnostic performance and inter reader agreement between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and PI-RADS v. 2 in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed, searching the major biomedical databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus), using the keywords "PIRADS 2.1" or "PI RADS 2.1" or "PI-RADS 2.1". Studies reporting on head-to-head diagnostic comparison between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2 were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. Summary receiver operator characteristic graphs were plotted. Analysis was performed for whole gland, and pre-planned subgroup analysis was performed by tumour location (whole gland vs transition zone (TZ)), high b-value DWI (b-value ≥1400 s/mm²), and reader experience (<5 years vs ≥5 years with prostate MRI interpretation). Inter-reader agreement and pooled rates of csPCa for PI-RADS 1-3 lesions were compared between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool v. 2 (QUADAS-2).

RESULTS

Eight studies (1836 patients, 1921 lesions) were included. Pooled specificity for PI-RADS v. 2.1 was significantly lower than PI-RADS v. 2 for whole gland (0.62 vs 0.66, p = 0.02). Pooled sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.17, 0.31, 0.41). Pooled specificity for PI-RADS v. 2.1 was significantly lower than PI-RADS v. 2 for TZ only (0.67 vs 0.72, p = 0.01). Pooled sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.06, 0.36, 0.17). Amongst studies utilising diffusion-weighted imaging with highest b-value of ≥1400 s/mm², pooled sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.52, 0.4, 0.5, 0.47). There were no significant differences in pooled sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and PI-RADS v. 2 for less-experienced readers (p = 0.65, 0.37, 0.65, 0.81) and for more experienced readers (p = 0.57, 0.90, 0.91, 0.65). For PI-RADS v. 2.1 alone, there were no significant differences in pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV between less and more experienced readers (p = 0.38, 0.70, 1, 0.48). Inter-reader agreement was moderate to substantial for both PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. There were no significant differences between pooled csPCa rates between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2 for PI-RADS 1-2 lesions (6.6% vs  7.3%, p = 0.53), or PI-RADS 3 lesions (24.1% vs  26.8%, p = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS v. 2.1 is comparable to PI-RADS v. 2, however the significantly lower specificity of PI-RADS v. 2.1 may result in increased number of unnecessary biopsies.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

1. Compared to PI-RADS v. 2, PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a non-significantly higher sensitivity but a significantly lower specificity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.2. PI-RADS v. 2.1 could potentially result in considerable increase in number of negative targeted biopsy rates for PI-RADS 3 lesions, which could have been potentially avoided.

Diffusion and quantification of diffusion of prostate cancer

For assessing a cancer treatment, and for detecting and characterizing cancer, Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is commonly used. The key in DWI's use extracranially has been due to the emergence of of high-gradient amplitude and multichannel coils, parallelimaging, and echo-planar imaging. The benefit has been fewer motion artefacts and high-quality prostate images.Recently, new techniques have been developed to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of DWI with fewer artefacts, allowing an increase in spatial resolution. For apparent diffusion coefficient quantification, non-Gaussian diffusion models have been proposed as additional tools for prostate cancer detection and evaluation of its aggressiveness. More recently, radiomics and machine learning for prostate magnetic resonance imaging have emerged as novel techniques for the non-invasive characterisation of prostate cancer. This review presents recent developments in prostate DWI and discusses its potential use in clinical practice.

Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present the latest evidence related to interobserver agreement and accuracy; evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of use; and outline opportunities for improvement and future development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

RECENT FINDINGS

Our review of currently available evidence suggests that recent improvements to the PI-RADS system with PI-RADS v2.1 slightly improved interobserver agreement, with generally high sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of clinically significant PCa. Recent evidence additionally demonstrates substantial improvement in diagnostic specificity with PI-RADS v2.1 compared with PI-RADS v2. However, results of studies examining the comparative performance of v2.1 are limited by small sample sizes and retrospective cohorts, potentially introducing selection bias. Some studies suggest a substantial improvement between v2.1 and v2, while others report no statistically significant difference. Additionally, in PI-RADS v2.1, the interpretation and reporting of certain findings remain subjective, particularly for category 2 lesions, and reader experience continues to vary significantly. These factors further contribute to a remaining degree of interobserver variability and findings of improved performance among more experienced readers. PI-RADS v2.1 appears to show at least minimal improvement in interobserver agreement, diagnostic performance, and both sensitivity and specificity, with greater improvements seen among more experienced readers. However, given the decrescent nature of these improvements and the limited power of all studies examined, the clinical impact of this progress may be marginal. Despite improvements in PI-RADS v2.1, practitioner experience in interpreting mpMRI of the prostate remains the most important factor in prostate cancer detection.

Structured reporting in radiologic education - Potential of different PI-RADS versions in prostate MRI controlled by in-bore MR-guided biopsies

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficiency of structured reporting in radiologic education – based on the example of different PI-RADS score versions for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate.

Methods:

MpMRI of 688 prostate lesions in 180 patients were retrospectively reviewed by an experienced radiologist and by a student using PI-RADS V1 and V2. Data sets were reviewed for changes according to PI-RADS V2.1. The results were correlated with results obtained by MR-guided biopsy. Diagnostic potency was evaluated by ROC analysis. Sensitivity, specificity and correct-graded samples were evaluated for different cutpoints. The agreement between radiologist and student was determined for the aggregation of the PI-RADS score in three categories. The student’s time needed for evaluation was measured.

Results:

The area under curve of the ROC analysis was 0.782/0.788 (V1/V2) for the student and 0.841/0.833 (V1/V2) for the radiologist. The agreement between student and radiologist showed a Cohen‘s weighted κ coefficient of 0.495 for V1 and 0.518 for V2. Median student’s time needed for score assessment was 4:34 min for PI-RADSv1 and 2:00 min for PI-RADSv2 (p < 0.001). Re-evaluation for V2.1 changed the category in 1.4% of all ratings.

Conclusion:

The capacity of prostate cancer detection using PI-RADS V1 and V2 is dependent on the reader‘s experience. The results from the two observers indicate that structured reporting using PI-RADS and, controlled by histopathology, can be a valuable and quantifiable tool in students‘ or residents’ education. Herein, V2 was superior to V1 in terms of inter-observer agreement and time efficacy.

Advances in knowledge:

Structured reporting can be a valuable and quantifiable tool in radiologic education. Structured reporting using PI-RADS can be used by a student with good performance. PI-RADS V2 is superior to V1 in terms of inter-observer agreement and time efficacy.

In prostatic transition zone lesions (PI-RADS v2.1): which subgroup should be biopsied?

Background

The study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) score 3 transition zone (TZ) lesions between Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 and modified PI-RADS v2.1-B.

Results

Among TZ lesions (n = 78), 47 (60.0%) had T2WI score of 3, and 16 of the 47 (34.0%) were malignant. The rate of malignancy was 8.8% in PI-RADS category 3A, 100% in PI-RADS category 3B, and 100% in PI-RADS category 4. The apparent diffusion coefficient value of PI-RADS category 3B (0.934 ± 0.158 × 10−3 mm2/s) showed significant difference with that of PI-RADS category 3A (1.098 ± 0.146 × 10−3 mm2/s) but none with PI-RADS category 4 (0.821 ± 0.091 × 10−3 mm2/s). There was no significant difference in the sensitivity and negative predictive value of PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2.1-B. Specificity and positive predictive value of modified PI-RADS v2.1-B were much higher than those of PI-RADS v2.1 for both readers (p < .001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve tended to be higher with PI-RADS v2.1-B than with PI-RADS v2.1.

Conclusion

Biopsy for PI-RADS 3B lesion is necessary due to its superior malignancy potential than that of PI-RADS 3A lesion.

Comparison between 18 F-DCFPyL PET and MRI for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of ¹⁸ F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography (PET) and multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) in detecting transition zone (TZ) prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 20 patients who underwent ¹⁸ F-DCFPyL PET/MRI and 32 patients who underwent ¹⁸ F-DCFPyL PET/CT and MRI from January 2019 to June 2020. All patients had TZ lesions and underwent prostate biopsies. One senior (reader 1) and one junior (reader 2) nuclear medicine physician evaluated each TZ lesion independently, according to the molecular imaging prostate-specific membrane antigen scoring system and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1). The histologic diagnosis of prostate biopsy was used as the reference standard. The diagnostic performance of the two methods was compared in terms of inter-reader agreement and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve.

RESULTS

Of the 52 patients, 43 had TZ PCa. For inter-reader agreement, the kappa value was 0.883 for ¹⁸ F-DCFPyL PET and 0.393 for mp-MRI. For PET, both readers had the same diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 93.0%, 77.8%, and 90.4%, respectively. For mp-MRI, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy was 67.4%, 33.3%, and 61.5% for reader 1, and 51.2%, 44.4%, and 51.9% for reader 2, respectively. PET outperformed mp-MRI for both readers with an AUC of 0.872 for PET versus 0.584 for mp-MRI, p = .0209 for reader 1, and an AUC of 0.860 for PET versus 0.505 for mp-MRI, p = .0213 for reader 2. Among the 43 patients with TZ PCa, ¹⁸ F-DCFPyL PET detected a distant bone metastasis missed by the CT in one case and two small lymph node metastases missed by the CT and MRI in another case.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that ¹⁸ F-DCFPyL PET, which was almost independent of the experience of the readers, was more objective in the evaluation of TZ lesions, and had higher diagnostic value than mp-MRI.

The Role of PSA Density among PI-RADS v2.1 Categories to Avoid an Unnecessary Transition Zone Biopsy in Patients with PSA 4-20 ng/mL

Objective

To evaluate the role of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in different Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) categories to avoid an unnecessary biopsy in transition zone (TZ) patients with PSA ranging from 4 to 20 ng/mL.

Materials and Methods

In this retrospective and single-center study, 333 biopsy-naïve patients with TZ lesions who underwent biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bp-MRI) were analyzed from January 2016 to March 2020. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine independent predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer (cs-PCa). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to compare diagnostic performance.

Results

PI-RADS v2.1 and PSAD were the independent predictors for TZ cs-PCa in patients with PSA 4-20 ng/mL. 0.9% (2/213), 10.0% (7/70), and 48.0% (24/50) of PI-RADS v2.1 score 1-2, 3, and 4-5 had TZ cs-PCa. However, for patients with PI-RADS v2.1 score 1-2, there were no obvious changes in the detection of TZ cs-PCa (0.8% (1/129), 1.3% (1/75), and 0.0% (0/9)) combining with different PSAD stratification (PSAD < 0.15, 0.15-0.29, and ≥0.30 ng/mL/mL). For patients with PI-RADS v2.1 score ≥ 3, the TZ cs-PCa detection rate significantly varied according to different PSAD stratification. A PI-RADS v2.1 score 3 and PSAD < 0.15 and 0.15-0.29 ng/mL/mL had 8.6% (3/35) and 3.7% (1/27) of TZ cs-PCa, while a PI-RADS v2.1 score 3 and PSAD ≥ 0.30 ng/mL/mL had a higher TZ cs-PCa detection rate (37.5% (3/8)). A PI-RADS v2.1 score 4-5 and PSAD <0.15 ng/mL/mL had no cs-PCa (0.0% (0/9)). In contrast, a PI-RADS v2.1 score 4-5 and PSAD 0.15-0.29 and ≥0.30 ng/mL/mL had the highest cs-PCa detection rate (50.0% (10/20), 66.7% (14/21)). It showed the highest AUC in the combination of PI-RADS v2.1 and PSAD (0.910), which was significantly higher than PI-RADS v2.1 (0.889, P = 0.039) or PSAD (0.803, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

For TZ patients with PSA 4-20 ng/mL, PI-RADS v2.1 score ≤ 2 can avoid an unnecessary biopsy regardless of PSAD. PI-RADS v2.1 score ≥ 3 may avoid an unnecessary biopsy after combining with PSAD. PI-RADS v2.1 combined with PSAD could significantly improve diagnostic performance.

Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level

BACKGROUND

The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) standardizes reporting of multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Assigned assessment categories are a risk stratification algorithm, higher categories indicate a higher probability of clinically significant cancer compared to lower categories. PI-RADSv2.1 does not define these probabilities numerically. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cancer detection rates (CDR) of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories on lesion level and patient level.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers screen a systematic PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL search for relevant articles (primary outcome: clinically significant cancer, index test: prostate MRI reading according to PI-RADSv2.1, reference standard: histopathology). We perform meta-analyses of proportions with random-effects models for the CDR of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories for clinically significant cancer. We perform subgroup analysis according to lesion localization to test for differences of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions.

RESULTS

A total of 17 articles meet the inclusion criteria and data is independently extracted by two reviewers. Lesion level analysis includes 1946 lesions, patient level analysis includes 1268 patients. On lesion level analysis, CDR are 2% (95% confidence interval: 0-8%) for PI-RADS 1, 4% (1-9%) for PI-RADS 2, 20% (13-27%) for PI-RADS 3, 52% (43-61%) for PI-RADS 4, 89% (76-97%) for PI-RADS 5. On patient level analysis, CDR are 6% (0-20%) for PI-RADS 1, 9% (5-13%) for PI-RADS 2, 16% (7-27%) for PI-RADS 3, 59% (39-78%) for PI-RADS 4, 85% (73-94%) for PI-RADS 5. Higher categories are significantly associated with higher CDR (P < 0.001, univariate meta-regression), no systematic difference of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions is identified in subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our estimates of CDR demonstrate that PI-RADSv2.1 stratifies lesions and patients as intended. Our results might serve as an initial evidence base to discuss management strategies linked to assessment categories.

[PI-RADS 2.1 and structured reporting of magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate]

Klinisches/methodisches Problem

Die Identifikation klinisch signifikanter Prostatakarzinome bei gleichzeitigem Vermeiden einer Überdiagnostik niedrigmaligner Tumoren stellt eine Herausforderung in der klinischen Routine dar.

Radiologische Standardverfahren

Die gemäß PI-RADS-Richtlinien (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Guidelines) akquirierte und interpretierte multiparametrische Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) der Prostata ist als klinischer Standard bei Urologen und Radiologen akzeptiert.

Methodische Innovationen

Die PI-RADS-Richtlinien sind neu auf Version 2.1 aktualisiert worden und beinhalten neben präzisierten technischen Anforderungen einzelne Änderungen in der Läsionsbewertung.

Leistungsfähigkeit

Die PI-RADS-Richtlinien haben entscheidende Bedeutung in der Standardisierung der multiparametrischen MRT der Prostata erlangt und bieten Vorlagen zur strukturierten Befundung, was die Kommunikation mit dem Zuweiser erleichtert.

Bewertung

Die nun auf Version 2.1 aktualisierten Richtlinien stellen eine Verfeinerung der verbreiteten Version 2.0 dar. Dabei wurden viele Aspekte der Befundung präzisiert, einige vorbekannte Limitationen bleiben jedoch bestehen und erfordern die weitere Verbesserung der Richtlinien in kommenden Versionen.

How does PI-RADS v2.1 impact patient classification? A head-to-head comparison between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1

BACKGROUND

PI-RADS classification has recently been updated, with the magnitude of changes implemented currently unknown.

PURPOSE

To quantify the categorization shifts between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective review of 535 consecutive diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies performed over 18 months, assigning to each case a PI-RADS category in the peripheral zone (PZ), the transition zone (TZ), and the whole gland using both PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1. Significance of changes in category assignments and of differences in the number of positive or negative MRIs were evaluated using the McNemar test.

RESULTS

Comparing v2.0 to v2.1 for the whole gland, 11.2% of PI-RADS 2 categories shifted to PI-RADS 1 (6.9% in the PZ, 56.8% in the TZ), 16.1% of PI-RADS 3 categories shifted to PI-RADS 2 (15.0% in the PZ, 20.0% in the TZ), and 2.1% of PI-RADS 2 categories shifted to PI-RADS 3 (0.3% in the PZ, 1.9% in the TZ). The proportion of PI-RADS 1 significantly increased from 0.6% to 7.3%, PI-RADS 2 significantly decreased from 60.0% to 53.8%, and PI-RADS 3 non-significantly decreased from 11.6% to 11.0%. The total number of positive exams (PI-RADS 3-5) did not change significantly (39.4% versus 38.8%).

CONCLUSION

The most prominent change between v2.0 and v2.1 was observed in the TZ with the downgrading of typical benign prostatic hyperplasia nodules from category 2 into category 1. Overall, there were no significant changes in the number of positive and negative MRI results, with an expected low influence in clinical management.

A nomogram based on PI-RADS v2.1 and clinical indicators for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer in the transition zone

Background

This study attempted to develop a nomogram for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (cs-PCa) in the transition zone (TZ) with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) score based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bp-MRI) and clinical indicators.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 383 patients with suspicious prostate lesions in the TZ as a training cohort and 128 patients as the validation cohort from January 2015 to March 2020. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors for building a nomogram, and the performance of the nomogram was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), the calibration curve and decision curve.

Results

The PI-RADS v2.1 score and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) were independent predictors of TZ cs-PCa. The prediction model had a significantly higher AUC (0.936) than the individual predictors (0.914 for PI-RADS v2.1 score, P=0.045, 0.842 for PSAD, P<0.001). The nomogram showed good discrimination (AUC of 0.936 in the training cohort and 0.963 in the validation cohort) and favorable calibration. When the PI-RADS v2.1 score was combined with PSAD, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 80.7% and 93.8%, respectively, which were better than those of the PI-RADS v2.1 score (sensitivity, 74.2%; specificity, 92.5%) and PSAD (sensitivity, 66.1%; specificity, 88.2%).

Conclusions

The newly constructed nomogram exhibits satisfactory predictive accuracy and consistency for TZ cs-PCa. PI-RADS v2.1 based on bp-MRI is a strong predictor in the detection of TZ cs-PCa. Adding PSAD to PI-RADS v2.1 could improve its diagnostic performance, thereby avoiding unnecessary biopsies.

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS): What the radiologists need to know?

We aim to review the new modifications in MR imaging technique, image interpretation, lexicon, and scoring system of the last version of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) in a simple and practical way. This last version of PI-RADS v2.1 describes the new technical modifications in the protocol of Multiparametric MRI (MpMRI) including T2, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) parameters. It includes also; new guidelines in the image interpretation specifications in new locations (lesions located in the central zone and anterior fibromuscular stroma), clarification of T2 scoring of lesions of the transition zone, the distinction between DWI score 2 and 3 lesions in the transition zone and peripheral zone, as well as between positive and negative enhancement in DCE. Biparametric MRI (BpMRI) along with simplified PI-RADS is gaining more acceptances in the assessment of clinically significant prostatic cancer.

The future direction of imaging in prostate cancer: MRI with or without contrast injection

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is the "state of the art" management tool for patients with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). The role of non-contrast MRI is investigated to move toward a more personalized, less invasive, and highly cost-effective PCa diagnostic workup.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a non-systematic review of the existing literature to highlight strength and flaws of performing non-contrast MRI, and to provide a critical overview of the international scientific production on the topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Online databases (Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched for original articles, systematic review and meta-analysis, and expert opinion papers.

RESULTS

Several investigations have shown comparable diagnostic accuracy of biparametric (bpMRI) and mpMRI for the detection of PCa. The advantage of abandoning contrast-enhanced sequences improves operational logistics, lowering costs, acquisition time, and side effects. The main limitations of bpMRI are that most studies comparing non-contrast with contrast MRI come from centers with high expertise that might not be reproducible in the general community setting; besides, reduced protocols might be insufficient for estimation of the intra- and extra-prostatic extension and regional disease. The mentioned observations suggest that low-quality mpMRI for the general population might represent the main shortage to overcome.

DISCUSSION

Non-contrast MRI future trends are likely represented by PCa screening and the application of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. PCa screening is still a controversial topic; bpMRI has become one of the most promising diagnostic applications, as it is a more sensitive test for PCa early detection, compared to serum PSA level test. Also, AI applications and radiomic have been the object of several studies investigating PCa detection using bpMRI, showing encouraging results.

CONCLUSION

Today, the accessibility to MRI for early detection of PCa is a priority. Results from prospective, multicenter, multireader, and paired validation studies are needed to provide evidence supporting its role in the clinical practice.

Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance between Version 2.0 and 2.1 for Prostatic Peripheral Zone

Objective

To compare the diagnostic performance between Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2.0) and version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in the peripheral zone (PZ).

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study included 317 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for PZ lesions. Definition of csPCa was International Society of Urologic Pathology grade ≥ 2 cancer. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy for csPCa were analyzed by two readers. The cancer detection rate (CDR) for csPCa was investigated according to the PI-RADS categories.

Results

AUC of PI-RADSv2.1 (0.856 and 0.858 for reader 1 and 2 respectively) was higher than that of PI-RADSv2.0 (0.795 and 0.747 for reader 1 and 2 respectively) (both p < 0.001). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for PI-RADSv2.0 vs. PI-RADSv2.1 were 93.2% vs. 88.3% (p = 0.023), 52.8% vs. 76.6% (p < 0.001), 48.7% vs. 64.5% (p < 0.001), 94.2% vs. 93.2% (p = 0.504), and 65.9% vs. 80.4% (p < 0.001) for reader 1, and 96.1% vs. 92.2% (p = 0.046), 34.1% vs. 72.4% (p < 0.001), 41.3% vs. 61.7% (p < 0.001), 94.8% vs. 95.1% (p = 0.869), and 54.3% vs. 78.9% (p < 0.001) for reader 2, respectively. CDRs of PI-RADS categories 1–2, 3, 4, and 5 for PI-RADSv2.0 vs. PI-RADSv2.1 were 5.9% vs. 5.9%, 5.8% vs. 12.5%, 39.8% vs. 56.2%, and 88.9% vs. 88.9% for reader 1; and 4.5% vs. 4.1%, 6.1% vs. 11.1%, 32.5% vs. 53.4%, and 85.0% vs. 86.8% for reader 2, respectively.

Conclusion

Our data demonstrated improved AUC, specificity, PPV, accuracy, and CDRs of category 3 or 4 of PI-RADSv2.1, but decreased sensitivity, compared with PI-RADSv2.0, for csPCa in PZ.

Prevalence of prostate cancer in PI-RADS version 2.1 T2-weighted transition zone 'nodule in nodule' and 'homogeneous mildly hypointense area between nodules' criteria: MRI-radical prostatectomy histopathological evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevalence of prostate cancer (PCa) of two PI-RADS version (v) 2.1 transition zone (TZ) features (PI-RADS 1 ['nodule in nodule'] and 2 ['homogeneous mildly hypointense area between nodules']).

METHODS

With an institutional review board approval, from a 5-year cohort between 2012 and 2017, we retrospectively identified 53 consecutive men with radical prostatectomy (RP) confirmed TZ tumors and MRI. Three blinded radiologists (R1/2/3) independently evaluated T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) using PI-RADS v2.1 for the presence of (1) 'nodule in nodule' (recording 'cystic change', inner nodule encapsulation, size, and DWI score) and (2) 'homogeneous mildly hypointense area between nodules' (also recording size and DWI score). MRI-RP maps established ground truth. Primary tumor was evaluated assessing PI-RADS v2.1 category, size, and presence of imaging variants.

RESULTS

R1/2/3 identified 26/18/22 'nodule in nodule' respectively with 7.7% (2/26; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.1-17.9%), 5.6% (1/18; 95% CI: 0.01-16.1%), and 4.5% (1/22; 95% CI: 0.01-13.3%) PCa (both Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7). Agreement was fair-to-substantial, kappa = 0.222-0.696. 'Cystic change', inner nodule absent/incomplete encapsulation and DWI score ≥ 4 for R1/R2/R2 were present in 80.8% (21/26), 46.2% (12/26), 7.7% (2/26); 94.4% (17/18), 33.3% (6/18), 5.6% (1/18); and 59.1% (13/22), 63.6% (14/22), 9.1% (2/22). Both PCa had inner nodule absent/incomplete encapsulation and DWI score ≥ 4. No other TZ tumors demonstrated 'nodule in nodule', nodule 'cystic change', or 'homogeneous mildly hypointense area between nodules'. R1/2/3 identified 5/6/13 'homogeneous mildly hypointense area between nodules' with zero PCa for any reader (upper bound 95% CI: 24.7-52.2%). Interobserver agreement was fair-to-substantial, kappa = 0.104-0.779.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of cancers in PI-RADS v2.1 'nodule in nodule' was low (~5-8%) with zero cancers detected in 'homogeneous mildly hypointense area between nodules'. When 'nodule in nodule' inner nodule shows absent or incomplete encapsulation with marked restricted diffusion, PCa may be considered; however, this warrants further studies.

KEY POINTS

• The prevalence of clinically significant prostate cancers in PI-RADS v2.1 'nodule in nodule' was low (5-8%, 95% CI: 0.1-17.9%). • Clinically significant prostate cancer was only detected in the 'nodule in nodule' variant when the inner nodule showed absent or incomplete encapsulation ('atypical nodule') with marked restricted diffusion. • 'Homogeneous mildly hypointense area between nodules' is likely benign with no cancers identified in the current study, however, with a wide 95% CI due to low prevalence.

Detection limits of significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MR and digital rectal examination in men with low serum PSA: Up-date of the Italian Society of Integrated Diagnostic in Urology

Reasons why significant prostate cancer is still missed in early stage were investigated at the 22nd National SIEUN (Italian Society of integrated diagnostic in Urology, Andrology, Nephrology) congress took place from 30th November to 1st December 2020, in virtual modality. Even if multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) has been introduced in the clinical practice several, limitations are emerging in patient with regular digital rectal examination (DRE) and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels approaching the normal limits. The present paper summarizes highlights observed in those cases where significant prostate cancer may be missed by PSA or imaging and DRE. The issue of multidisciplinary interest had been subdivided and deepened under four main topics: biochemical, clinical, pathological and radiological point of view with a focus on PI-RADS 3 lesions.

Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MR imaging of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 in detection of prostate cancer

Background

Prostate cancer (PCa) is considered to be the commonest cancer among males. Early and precise diagnosis of PCa is essential for adequate treatment. Multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) is actually the most precise imaging technique used for early diagnosis of PCa. The aim of this work was to assess the diagnostic capability of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of PI-RADS V2.1 in detection of prostate cancer (PCa). This prospective study was carried on 60 male patients with high PSA. bpMRI and mpMRI were performed for all patients using a 3-T MRI scanner. The diagnostic performance of bpMRI of PI-RADS V2.1 was compared to that of mpMRI of PI-RADS V 2.1. The diagnosis of Pca was confirmed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy and the results of open prostatectomy specimens.

Results

When considering PI-RADS categories 1, 2, and 3 as benign and categories 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI (sensitivity was 88.6% for mpMRI versus 60% for bpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 91.7% for mpMRI versus 75% for bpMRI). When considering PI-RADS categories 1 and 2 as benign and PI-RADS categories 3.4 and 5 as malignant, the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI and mpMRI were comparable (sensitivity was 94.3% for both bpMRI and mpMRI and diagnostic accuracy was 86.7% for both bpMRI and mpMRI).

Conclusion

Considering PI-RADS scores 4 and 5 as malignant, mpMRI had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy when compared with bpMRI; however, when considering PI-RADS scores 3, 4, and 5 as malignant, both bpMRI and mpMRI had similar diagnostic accuracy.

Diagnostic Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement of PI-RADS Version 2 and Version 2.1 for the Detection of Transition Zone Prostate Cancers

BACKGROUND. PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) introduced a number of key changes to the assessment of transition zone (TZ) lesions. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy for detecting TZ prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) by use of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 among radiologists with different levels of experience. METHODS. This retrospective study included 355 biopsy-naïve patients who from January 2017 to March 2020 underwent prostate MRI that showed a TZ lesion and underwent subsequent biopsy. PCa was diagnosed in 93 patients (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade group 1, n = 34; ISUP grade group ≥ 2, n = 59) and non-cancerous lesions in 262 patients. Five radiologists with varying experience in prostate MRI scored lesions using PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 in sessions separated by at least 4 weeks. Interobserver agreement was evaluated with kappa and Kendall W statistics. ROC curve analysis was used to evaluate performance in detection of TZ PCa and csPCa. RESULTS. Interobserver agreement among all readers was higher for PI-RADS v2.1 than for PI-RADS v2 (mean weighted κ = 0.700 vs 0.622; Kendall W = 0.805 vs 0.728; p = .03). The pooled AUC values for detecting TZ PCa and csPCa were higher among all readers using PI-RADS v2.1 (0.866 vs 0.827 for TZ PCa; 0.929 vs 0.899 for TZ csPCa; p < .001). For detecting TZ PCa, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86.9%, 79.4%, and 75.4% among all readers for PI-RADS v2.1 compared with 79.4%, 71.8%, and 73.8% for PI-RADS v2. For detecting TZ csPCa, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 84.8%, 90.9%, and 89.9% among all readers for PI-RADS v2.1 compared with 81.4%, 89.9%, and 88.5% for PI-RADS v2. Reader 1, who had the least experience, had the lowest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (78.0%, 89.2%, and 87.3%). Reader 5, who had the most experience, had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (88.1%, 92.9%, and 92.1%) in detecting csPCa. CONCLUSION. PI-RADS v2.1 had better interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy than PI-RADS v2 for evaluating TZ lesions. Reader experience continues to affect the performance of prostate MRI interpretation with PI-RADS v2.1. CLINICAL IMPACT. PI-RADS v2.1 is more accurate and reproducible than PI-RADS v2 for the diagnosis of TZ PCa.

Use of Radiomics to Improve Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS v2.1 in Prostate Cancer

Objective

To investigate whether a radiomics model can help to improve the performance of PI-RADS v2.1 in prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of 203 patients with pathologically confirmed PCa or non-PCa between March 2015 and December 2016. Patients were divided into a training set (n = 141) and a validation set (n = 62). The radiomics model (Rad-score) was developed based on multi-parametric MRI including T2 weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) imaging, and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging. The combined model involving Rad-score and PI-RADS was compared with PI-RADS for the diagnosis of PCa by using the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis.

Results

A total of 112 (55.2%) patients had PCa, and 91 (44.8%) patients had benign lesions. For PCa versus non-PCa, the Rad-score had a significantly higher area under the ROC curve (AUC) [0.979 (95% CI, 0.940–0.996)] than PI-RADS [0.905 (0.844–0.948), P = 0.002] in the training set. However, the AUC between them was insignificant in the validation set [0.861 (0.749–0.936) vs. 0.845 (0.731–0.924), P = 0.825]. When Rad-score was added to PI-RADS, the performance of the PI-RADS was significantly improved for the PCa diagnosis (AUC = 0.989, P < 0.001 for the training set and AUC = 0.931, P = 0.038 for the validation set).

Conclusions

The radiomics based on multi-parametric MRI can help to improve the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2.1 in PCa.

Prevalence of Prostate Cancer in PI-RADS Version 2.1 Transition Zone Atypical Nodules Upgraded by Abnormal DWI: Correlation With MRI-Directed TRUS-Guided Targeted Biopsy

BACKGROUND. In PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1), atypical transition zone (TZ) nodules (homogeneous circumscribed nodules without full encapsulation) assigned category 2 can be upgraded to category 3 when showing markedly restricted diffusion. The prevalence of prostate cancer (PCa) in DWI-upgraded atypical nodules is unknown. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of PCa in DWI-upgraded TZ atypical nodules and compare PCa diagnosis rate with that for conventional score 3 TZ nodules. METHODS. We retrospectively identified 104 consecutive cases of men who underwent MRI-directed transrectal ultrasound-guided targeted biopsy of 109 TZ category 3 or lower nodules performed between January 2015 and July 2018. Three radiologists who were blinded to the scores independently rescored lesions using PI-RADS v2.1. Agreement was assessed by Cohen kappa score. Consensus diagnosis was established by a second-round joint review. The number of TZ atypical nodules with or without DWI-upgraded and conventional score 3 TZ nodules were recorded and compared with targeted biopsy results including any PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade group ≥ 2) using chi-square analysis. RESULTS. There were 95 PI-RADS v2.1 category 3 (55 conventional T2-weighted MRI score 3 and 40 DWI-upgraded atypical nodules) and 14 category 2 or 1 nodules at consensus review with patient mean age of 64.8 ± 8.4 (SD) years, PSA of 10.6 ± 7.2 ng/mL, and nodule size of 15.1 ± 5.5 mm. Interobserver agreement ranged from slight to substantial for radiologists 1 and 2 (κ = 0.329), radiologists 1 and 3 (κ = 0.548), and radiologists 2 and 3 (κ = 0.652). From the 40 upgraded atypical nodules, 27.5% (11/40) had PCa and 7.5% (3/40) had csPCa (8 ISUP grade 1, 2 ISUP grade 2, 1 ISUP grade 3), compared with 43.6% (24/55) PCa and 20.0% (11/55) csPCa (13 ISUP grade 1, 6 ISUP grade 2, 3 ISUP grade 3, 2 ISUP grade 4) diagnosed in conventional T2-weighted score 3 nodules (p = .09 for csPCA and p = .11 for PCa). PCa was not diagnosed in any atypical nodule that was not upgraded on DWI. CONCLUSION. The prevalence of PCa in DWI-upgraded TZ atypical nodules was low (≈ 28% for any PCa and ≈ 8% for csPCa) and compared favorably to csPCa diagnosis rates in conventional TZ score 3 nodules. CLINICAL IMPACT. This study validates the DWI upgrade rule introduced in PI-RADS v2.1 for atypical nodules, which showed significant prostate cancer detection rates at targeted biopsy similar to those of conventional T2-weighted MRI TZ score 3 nodules.

Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) and PI-RADS v2 for transition zone prostate cancer (TZPC), and analyse its performance for readers with different experience levels.

METHODS

Eighty-five patients with suspected prostate cancer who underwent biopsy after MRI scan between January and December 2017 were retrospectively enrolled. One junior radiologist (reader 1, 1 year of experience in using PI-RADS v2) and one senior radiologist (reader 2, 6 years of experience) independently reviewed and assigned a score for each lesion according to PI-RADS v2.1 and v2. The template-guided transperineal prostate biopsy was used for standard of reference. To compare the diagnostic performance of the two methods, the AUC was calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated at predefined positive values (PI-RADS ≥ 3). The interreader agreement and frequency of prostate cancer for each PI-RADS category were also calculated.

RESULTS

Among the 85 patients, 27 had prostate cancers, and 25 were clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The AUC values for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer significantly increased with PI-RADS v2.1 for reader 2 (0.766 vs. 0.902, P = 0.009). The specificity and accuracy for both readers also increased with PI-RADS v2.1 (specificity: reader 1, 41.7% vs. 78.3% and reader 2, 33.3% vs. 81.7%; accuracy: reader 1, 52.9% vs. 76.5% and reader 2, 48.2% vs. 83.5%, all P < 0.05). The interreader agreement was good for both versions. The percentage of prostate cancer decreased in lower PI-RADS categories (PI-RADS 2) and increased in higher PI-RADS categories (PI-RADS 3 ~ 4).

CONCLUSION

Compared with PI-RADS v2, PI-RADS v2.1 may improve radiologists' diagnostic performance for TZPC.

PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study

PURPOSE

The studies comparing the versions 2 vs. 2.1 of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) are rare. This study aimed to evaluate whether PI-RADS version 2.1 is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer in comparison with PI-RADS version 2.

METHODS

This was a diagnostic study of patients with prostate diseases who visited the Urology Department of The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University and underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination between 03-01-2016 and 10-31-2018. The images originally analyzed using PI-RADS version 2 were retrospectively re-analyzed and scored in 2019 according to the updated PI-RADS version 2.1. The kappa and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used.

RESULTS

For Reader 1, compared with PI-RADS version 2, version 2.1 had higher sensitivity (85% vs. 79%, P = 0.03), lower specificity (65% vs. 83%, P < 0.001), and lower area under the curve (AUC) (0.749 vs. 0.809, P < 0.001). For Reader 2 (first attempt), compared with PI-RADS version 2, version 2.1 had lower specificity (67% vs. 91%, P < 0.001) and lower AUC (0.702 vs. 0.844, P < 0.001). For Reader 2 (second attempt), compared with PI-RADS version 2, version 2.1 had higher sensitivity (88% vs. 78%, P < 0.001) and lower specificity (77% vs. 91%, P < 0.001). The kappa between the two attempts for Reader 2 was 0.321.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that PI-RADS version 2.1 might improve the detection of prostate cancers in the transition zone compared with PI-RADS version 2 but that it might results in higher numbers of biopsies because of lower specificity.

Correlation between Intraprostatic PSMA Uptake and MRI PI-RADS of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2.0 and PI-RADS Version 2.1

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the correlation between PSMA uptake and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) PI-RADS of simultaneous [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI regarding PI-RADS version 2.0 and 2.1 respectively and compared the difference between these two versions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a total of forty-six patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent simultaneous [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI. We classified the lesions regarding PI-RADS version 2.0 and 2.1, peripheral zone (PZ), and transitional zone (TZ), respectively. Based on regions of interest (ROI), standardized uptake values maximum (SUVmax), and corresponding lesion-to-background ratios (LBR) of SUVmax of each category, PI-RADS score 1 to 5, were measured. A comparison between PI-RADS version 2.0 and PI-RADS version 2.1 was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 215 focal prostate lesions were analyzed, including two subgroups, 125 TZ and 90 PZ. Data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Regarding PI-RADS version 2.1, TZ SUVmax of each category were 1.5 (0.5, 1.9), 1.9 (0.8, 2.3), 3.3 (2.1, 4.6), 4.2 (3.1, 5.7), 7.3 (5.2, 9.7). PZ SUVmax of each category were 1.0 (0.8, 1.6), 2.5 (1.5, 3.2), 3.3 (1.9, 4.5), 4.3 (3.0, 5.4), 7.4 (5.0, 9.3). Regarding the inter-reader agreement of the overall PI-RADS assessment category, the kappa value was 0.723 for version 2.0 and 0.853 for version 2.1.

CONCLUSION

Revisions of PI-RADS version 2.1 results in variations in lesions classification. Lesions with the PI-RADS category of 3, 4, and 5 present relatively higher intraprostatic PSMA uptake, while lesions with the PI-RADS category of 1 and 2 present relatively lower and similar uptake. Version 2.1 has higher inter-reader reproducibility than version 2.0.

PI-RADS Version 2.1: A Critical Review, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems

PI-RADS version 2.1 updates the technical parameters for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and revises the imaging interpretation criteria while maintaining the framework introduced in version 2. These changes have been considered an improvement, although some issues remain unresolved, and new issues have emerged. Areas for improvement discussed in this review include the need for more detailed mpMRI protocols with optimization for 1.5-T and 3-T systems; lack of validation of revised transition zone interpretation criteria and need for clarifications of the revised DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria and central zone (CZ) assessment; the need for systematic evaluation and reporting of background changes in signal intensity in the prostate that can negatively affect cancer detection; creation of a new category for lesions that do not fit into the PI-RADS assessment categories (i.e., PI-RADS M category); inclusion of quantitative parameters beyond size to evaluate lesion aggressiveness; adjustments to the structured report template, including standardized assessment of the risk of extraprostatic extension; development of parameters for image quality and performance control; and suggestions for expansion of the system to other indications (e.g., active surveillance and recurrence).

PI-RADS Versions 2 and 2.1: Interobserver Agreement and Diagnostic Performance in Peripheral and Transition Zone Lesions Among Six Radiologists

BACKGROUND. PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) modifications primarily address transition zone (TZ) interpretation. The revisions also impact peripheral zone (PZ) interpretation, which has received less attention. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare interobserver agreement of PI-RADS version 2 (v2) and v2.1 in the prostate PZ and TZ and perform a pilot comparison of their diagnostic performance in the two zones. METHODS. Six radiologists with varying experience retrospectively assessed 80 prostate lesions (40 PZ, 40 TZ) on MRI in separate sessions for PI-RADS v2 and v2.1. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Conger kappa (κ). For 50 lesions with pathology data, average AUC for detecting clinically significant cancer was compared between versions using multireader multicase statistical methods. Error variance and covariance results informed post hoc power analysis. RESULTS. Interobserver agreement for PI-RADS category 4 or greater was higher for version 2.1 (κ = 0.64) than version 2 (κ = 0.51) in the PZ, but similar for version 2 (κ = 0.64) and version 2.1 (κ = 0.60) in the TZ. The PI-RADS v2.1 DWI descriptor "linear/wedge-shaped" had higher agreement than its predecessor version 2 descriptor "indistinct hypointense" (κ = 0.52 vs κ = 0.18) and yielded 14 more true-negative versus five more false-negative interpretations. The ADC signal descriptor "markedly hypointense," for which only version 2.1 provides a specific definition, had lower agreement in version 2.1 (κ = 0.26) than version 2 (κ = 0.52). Modified TZ T2-weighted category 2 descriptors in version 2.1 had fair agreement (κ = 0.21), and agreement for PI-RADS category 2 in the TZ was lower in version 2.1 (κ = 0.31) than version 2 (κ = 0.57). DWI upgraded a TZ lesion category from 2 to 3 in four patients, detecting two additional cancers. Average AUC was not different between versions 2 and 2.1 for the PZ (AUC, 0.81 vs 0.85; p = .24) or the TZ (AUC, 0.69 vs 0.69; p = .94), though among experienced readers AUC was higher for version 2.1 than version 2 for the PZ (0.91 vs 0.82; p = .001). Overall performance comparison had sufficient power (0.8) to detect a 0.085 difference in AUC. CONCLUSION. Interobserver agreement improved using PI-RADS v2.1 in the PZ but not the TZ. Diagnostic performance improved using version 2.1 only in the PZ for experienced readers. Specific version 2.1 modifications yielded mixed results. CLINICAL IMPACT. The impact of PI-RADS v2.1 in the PZ is notable given the emphasis on version 2.1 TZ modifications. The findings suggest areas in which additional modification could further improve interobserver agreement and performance.

Prospective PI-RADS v2.1 Atypical Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Nodules With Marked Restricted Diffusion: Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Multiparametric MRI

BACKGROUND. On the basis of expert consensus, PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) introduced the transition zone (TZ) atypical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) nodule, defined as a TZ lesion with an incomplete or absent capsule (T2 score, 2). PI-RADS v2.1 also included a revised scoring pathway whereby such nodules, if exhibiting marked restricted diffusion (DWI score, 4-5), are upgraded from overall PI-RADS category 2 to category 3 (2 + 1 TZ lesions). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in prospectively reported 2 + 1 TZ lesions, as defined by PI-RADS v2.1, and conventional 3 + 0 TZ lesions with targeted biopsy as the reference standard. METHODS. This retrospective study included men with no known PCa or with treatment-naïve grade group (GG) 1 PCa who underwent 3-T multiparametric MRI of the prostate with prospective reporting by means of PI-RADS v2.1. Patients with at least one PI-RADS category 3 TZ lesion who underwent targeted biopsy formed the final sample. Biopsy results were summarized descriptively for 2 + 1 and 3 + 0 lesions. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare csPCa detection rates between groups. Associations between csPCa in 2 + 1 lesions and patient age, PSA level, prostate volume, PSA density, biopsy history, lesion size, and lesion ADC were tested with Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS. Among 1238 eligible patients who underwent MRI reported with PI-RADS v2.1, 2 + 1 lesions were reported in 6% (n = 69) and 3 + 0 TZ lesions in 7% (n = 87) of patients. No PCa, GG1 PCa, or csPCa was found in 84% (n = 41), 10% (n = 5), and 6% (n = 3) of 49 patients with 2 + 1 lesions who underwent targeted biopsy. Nor were they found in 74% (n = 45), 15% (n = 9), and 11% (n = 7) of 61 patients with 3 + 0 lesions who underwent targeted biopsy. The csPCa detection rate was not significantly different between 2 + 1 and 3 + 0 lesions (p = .31). All cases of csPCa were GG2, except for one 3 + 0 lesion with a GG3 tumor. No clinical or imaging variable was associated with csPCa in 2 + 1 lesions. CONCLUSION. The rate of csPCa in atypical BPH nodules with marked restricted diffusion was low (6%) and not significantly different from that of conventional 3 + 0 TZ lesions (11%). CLINICAL IMPACT. The results provide prospective clinical data about the revised TZ scoring criterion and pathway in PI-RADS v2.1 for atypical BPH nodules with marked restricted diffusion.

Assessment of DCE Utility for PCa Diagnosis Using PI-RADS v2.1: Effects on Diagnostic Accuracy and Reproducibility

The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI (DCE-MRI) for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring is a controversial topic. In this retrospective study, we aimed to measure the added value of DCE-MRI in combination with T2-weighted (T2W) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) using PI-RADS v2.1, in terms of reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy, for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (CS-PCa, for Gleason Score ≥ 7). 117 lesions in 111 patients were identified as suspicion by multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and addressed for biopsy. Three experienced readers independently assessed PI-RADS score, first using biparametric MRI (bpMRI, including DWI and T2W), and then multiparametric MRI (also including DCE). The inter-rater and inter-method agreement (bpMRI- vs. mpMRI-based scores) were assessed by Cohen's kappa (κ). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy for PCa and CS-PCa detection among the two scores. Inter-rater agreement was excellent for the three pairs of readers (κ ≥ 0.83), while the inter-method agreement was good (κ ≥ 0.73). Areas under the ROC curve (AUC) showed similar high-values (0.8 ≤ AUC ≤ 0.85). The reproducibility of PI-RADS v2.1 scoring was comparable and high among readers, without relevant differences, depending on the MRI protocol used. The inclusion of DCE did not influence the diagnostic accuracy.

Editorial on "Head-to-Head Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer"

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:587-588.