Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection

Case-by-case combination of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 with the Likert score to reduce the false-positives of prostate MRI: a proof-of-concept study

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively investigate whether a case-by-case combination of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS) with the Likert score improves the diagnostic performance of mpMRI for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), especially by reducing false-positives.

METHODS

One hundred men received mpMRI between January 2020 and April 2021, followed by prostate biopsy. Reader 1 (R1) and reader 2 (R2) (experience of > 3000 and < 200 mpMRI readings) independently reviewed mpMRIs with the PI-RADS version 2.1. After unveiling clinical information, they were free to add (or not) a Likert score to upgrade or downgrade or reinforce the level of suspicion of the PI-RADS category attributed to the index lesion or, rather, identify a new index lesion. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of R1/R2 in detecting csPCa when biopsying PI-RADS ≥ 3 index-lesions (strategy 1) versus PI-RADS ≥ 3 or Likert ≥ 3 index-lesions (strategy 2), with decision curve analysis to assess the net benefit. In strategy 2, the Likert score was considered dominant in determining biopsy decisions.

RESULTS

csPCa prevalence was 38%. R1/R2 used combined PI-RADS and Likert categorization in 28%/18% of examinations relying mainly on clinical features such as prostate specific antigen level and digital rectal examination than imaging findings. The specificity/positive predictive values were 66.1/63.1% for R1 (95%CI 52.9-77.6/54.5-70.9) and 50.0/51.6% (95%CI 37.0-63.0/35.5-72.4%) for R2 in the case of PI-RADS-based readings, and 74.2/69.2% for R1 (95%CI 61.5-84.5/59.4-77.5%) and 56.6/54.2% (95%CI 43.3-69.0/37.1-76.6%) for R2 in the case of combined PI-RADS/Likert readings. Sensitivity/negative predictive values were unaffected. Strategy 2 achieved greater net benefit as a trigger of biopsy for R1 only.

CONCLUSION

Case-by-case combination of the PI-RADS version 2.1 with Likert score translated into a mild but measurable impact in reducing the false-positives of PI-RADS categorization, though greater net benefit in reducing unnecessary biopsies was found in the experienced reader only.

Target Volume Optimization for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive review of the means by which to optimize target volume definition for the purposes of treatment planning for patients with intact prostate cancer with a specific emphasis on focal boost volume definition.

METHODS

Here we conduct a narrative review of the available literature summarizing the current state of knowledge on optimizing target volume definition for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Historically, the treatment of prostate cancer included a uniform prescription dose administered to the entire prostate with or without coverage of all or part of the seminal vesicles. The development of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) using prostate-specific radiotracers has ushered in an era in which radiation oncologists are able to localize and focally dose-escalate high-risk volumes in the prostate gland. Recent phase 3 data has demonstrated that incorporating focal dose escalation to high-risk subvolumes of the prostate improves biochemical control without significantly increasing toxicity. Still, several fundamental questions remain regarding the optimal target volume definition and prescription strategy to implement this technique. Given the remaining uncertainty, a knowledge of the pathological correlates of radiographic findings and the anatomic patterns of tumor spread may help inform clinical judgement for the definition of clinical target volumes.

CONCLUSION

Advanced imaging has the ability to improve outcomes for patients with prostate cancer in multiple ways, including by enabling focal dose escalation to high-risk subvolumes. However, many questions remain regarding the optimal target volume definition and prescription strategy to implement this practice, and key knowledge gaps remain. A detailed understanding of the pathological correlates of radiographic findings and the patterns of local tumor spread may help inform clinical judgement for target volume definition given the current state of uncertainty.

Update on PI-RADS Version 2.1 Diagnostic Performance Benchmarks for Prostate MRI: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is standardized by the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), currently in version 2.1. A systematic review and meta-analysis infrastructure with a 12-month update cycle was established to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS over time. Purpose To provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy and cancer detection rates (CDRs) of PI-RADS version 2.1 categories for prostate MRI, which is required for further evidence-based patient management. Materials and Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple trial registers (English-language studies published from March 1, 2019, to August 30, 2022) was performed. Studies that reported data on diagnostic accuracy or CDRs of PI-RADS version 2.1 with csPCa as the primary outcome were included. For the meta-analysis, pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and CDRs were derived from extracted data at the lesion level and patient level. Sensitivity and specificity for PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 and PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4 considered as test positive were investigated. In addition to individual PI-RADS categories 1-5, subgroup analyses of subcategories (ie, 2+1, 3+0) were performed. Results A total of 70 studies (11 686 lesions, 13 330 patients) were included. At the patient level, with PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 considered positive, meta-analysis found a 96% summary sensitivity (95% CI: 95, 98) and 43% specificity (95% CI: 33, 54), with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.93). For PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4, meta-analysis found an 89% sensitivity (95% CI: 85, 92) and 66% specificity (95% CI: 58, 74), with an area under the SROC curve of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.92). CDRs were as follows: PI-RADS 1, 6%; PI-RADS 2, 5%; PI-RADS 3, 19%; PI-RADS 4, 54%; and PI-RADS 5, 84%. The CDR was 12% (95% CI: 7, 19) for transition zone 2+1 lesions and 19% (95% CI: 12, 29) for 3+0 lesions (P = .12). Conclusion Estimates of diagnostic accuracy and CDRs for PI-RADS version 2.1 categories are provided for quality benchmarking and to guide further evidence-based patient management. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Tammisetti and Jacobs in this issue.

PI-RADS Upgrading Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection and Biopsy Avoidance of MRI-Directed Diagnostic Pathways

BACKGROUND. PI-RADS incorporates rules by which ancillary sequence findings upgrade a dominant score to a higher final category. Evidence on the upgrading rules' impact on diagnostic pathways remains scarce. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the clinical net benefit of the PI-RADS upgrading rules in MRI-directed diagnostic pathways. METHODS. This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained clinical registry. The study included patients without known prostate cancer who underwent prostate MRI followed by prostate biopsy from January 2016 to May 2020. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 2 and higher. csPCa detection was compared between dominant (i.e., no upgrade rule applied) and upgraded lesions. Decision-curve analysis was used to compare the net benefit, considering the trade-off of csPCa detection and biopsy avoidance, of MRI-directed pathways in scenarios considering and disregarding PI-RADS upgrading rules. These included a biopsy-all pathway, MRI-focused pathway (no biopsy for PI-RADS ≤ 2), and risk-based pathway (use of PSA density ≥ 0.15 ng/mL2 to select patients with PI-RADS ≤ 3 for biopsy). RESULTS. The sample comprised 716 patients (mean age, 64.9 years; 93 with a PI-RADS ≤ 2 examination, 623 with total of 780 PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions). Frequencies of csPCa were not significantly different between dominant and upgraded PI-RADS 3 transition zone lesions (20% vs 19%, respectively), dominant and upgraded PI-RADS 4 transition zone lesions (33% vs 26%), and dominant and upgraded PI-RADS 4 peripheral zone lesions (58% vs 45%) (p > .05). In the biopsy-all, per-guideline MRI-focused, MRI-focused disregarding upgrading rules, per-guideline risk-based, and risk-based disregarding upgrading rules pathways, csPCa frequency was 53%, 52%, 51%, 52%, and 48% and biopsy avoidance was 0%, 13%, 16%, 19%, and 25%, respectively. Disregarding upgrading rules yielded 5.5 and 1.9 biopsies avoided per missed csPCa for MRI-focused and risk-based pathways, respectively. At probability thresholds for biopsy selection of 7.5-30.0%, net benefit was highest for the per-guideline risk-based pathway. CONCLUSION. Disregarding PI-RADS upgrading rules reduced net clinical bene fit of the risk-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway when considering trade-offs between csPCa detection and biopsy avoidance. CLINICAL IMPACT. This study supports the application of PI-RADS upgrading rules to optimize biopsy selection, particularly in risk-based pathways.

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.

Machine learning prediction of Gleason grade group upgrade between in-bore biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology

This study aimed to enhance the accuracy of Gleason grade group (GG) upgrade prediction in prostate cancer (PCa) patients who underwent MRI-guided in-bore biopsy (MRGB) and radical prostatectomy (RP) through a combined analysis of prebiopsy and MRGB clinical data. A retrospective analysis of 95 patients with prostate cancer diagnosed by MRGB was conducted where all patients had undergone RP. Among the patients, 64.2% had consistent GG results between in-bore biopsies and RP, whereas 28.4% had upgraded and 7.4% had downgraded results. GG1 biopsy results, lower biopsy core count, and fewer positive cores were correlated with upgrades in the entire patient group. In patients with GG > 1 , larger tumor sizes and fewer biopsy cores were associated with upgrades. By integrating MRGB data with prebiopsy clinical data, machine learning (ML) models achieved 85.6% accuracy in predicting upgrades, surpassing the 64.2% baseline from MRGB alone. ML analysis also highlighted the value of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient ( ADC min ) for GG > 1 patients. Incorporation of MRGB results with tumor size, ADC min value, number of biopsy cores, positive core count, and Gleason grade can be useful to predict GG upgrade at final pathology and guide patient selection for active surveillance.

Combining magnetic resonance imaging with a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score to improve identification of clinically significant prostate cancer

Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has emerged as an important tool for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. We examined if the addition of a 400-variant multi-ancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) to mpMRI has the potential to improve identification. Based on data from 24 617 men from the Mass General Brigham Biobank, we identified 1243 men who underwent mpMRI. Men in the top PRS quartile were more likely to have clinically significant prostate cancer (47.1% vs 28.6% in the bottom PRS quartile, adjusted relative proportion 1.72 [95% CI = 1.35 to 2.19]). Both among men with a positive and a negative mpMRI, men in the top PRS quartile had the highest frequency of clinically significant cancer. In a constructed scenario for selecting men to undergo biopsy, use of the PRS lowered the frequency of missed clinically significant cancers from 9.1% to 5.9%. Our study provides initial support for using the PRS to improve identification of potentially lethal prostate cancer.

Characterization of hypermetabolic lymph nodes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination using PET-CT derived node-RADS, in patients with melanoma

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Node Reporting and Data System (Node-RADS) in discriminating between normal, reactive, and metastatic axillary LNs in patients with melanoma who underwent SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Patients with proven melanoma who underwent a 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (2-[18F]-FDG PET/CT) between February and April 2021 were included in this retrospective study. Primary melanoma site, vaccination status, injection site, and 2-[18F]-FDG PET/CT were used to classify axillary LNs into normal, inflammatory, and metastatic (combined classification). An adapted Node-RADS classification (A-Node-RADS) was generated based on LN anatomical characteristics on low-dose CT images and compared to the combined classification. 108 patients were included in the study (54 vaccinated). HALNs were detected in 42 patients (32.8%), of whom 97.6% were vaccinated. 172 LNs were classified as normal, 30 as inflammatory, and 14 as metastatic using the combined classification. 152, 22, 29, 12, and 1 LNs were classified A-Node-RADS 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Hence, 174, 29, and 13 LNs were deemed benign, equivocal, and metastatic. The concordance between the classifications was very good (Cohen's k: 0.91, CI 0.86-0.95; p-value < 0.0001). A-Node-RADS can assist the classification of axillary LNs in melanoma patients who underwent 2-[18F]-FDG PET/CT and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

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.

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.

External validation of a prostate cancer nomogram on magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with prior negative systematic biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To observe how the nomogram, which was created by Truong et al, works in an independent patient group by performing external validation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and eighty-one patients who had at least one prior negative 12-core standard systematic biopsy and lesions with PI-RADS scores of 3 or higher that were detected as a result of mpMRI were included in the study. Targeted biopsy with 12-core standard systematic biopsy was performed on all patients. Clinical and pathological features of the patients were recorded. The discrimination, calibration and decision curve analysis were performed to externally validate the nomogram.

RESULTS

A total of 181 patients with previous negative 12-core systematic biopsies were analysed. One hundred and thirty-four patients (74%) had benign pathology. Radiological volume and PI-RADS scores of 4 and 5 were found as independent predictors of benign pathology. The area under the curve (CI 95%) was found to be 0.80 (0.73-0.87), indicating good discrimination. The median residual was calculated as -0.0873, the intercept as -0.0690, the slope as 0.8927 and r² as 0.2586, indicating good calibration. The standardised net benefit of follow-up decisions was found to be 0.54 and 0.36 at the probability threshold of 0.7 and 0.8, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The original model showed good discrimination and calibration with our data. Defining a high probability threshold for clinical use would be appropriate for centres with high benign biopsy rates similar to our centre.

Emerging role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in identifying clinically relevant localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To explore the recent advances and utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the diagnosis and risk-stratification of prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Low-risk, clinically insignificant prostate cancer has a decreased risk of morbidity or mortality. Meanwhile, patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer may significantly benefit from interventions like radiation or surgery. To appropriately risk stratify these patients, MRI has emerged as the imaging modality in the last decade to assist in defining prostate cancer significance, location, and biologic aggressiveness. Traditional 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy is associated with over-detection, and ultimately over-treatment of clinically insignificant disease, and the under-detection of clinically significant disease. Biopsy accuracy is improved with MRI-guided targeted biopsy and with the use of standardized risk stratification imaging score systems. Cancer detection accuracy is further improved with combined biopsy techniques that include both systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy that aid in detection of MRI-invisible lesions.

SUMMARY

mpMRI is an area of expanding innovation that continues to refine the diagnostic accuracy of prostate biopsies. As mpMRI-targeted biopsy in prostate cancer becomes more commonplace, advances like artificial intelligence and less invasive dynamic metabolic imaging will continue to improve the utility of MRI.

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.

Predictive clinical features for negative histopathology of MRI/Ultrasound-fusion-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high likelihood of cancer at prostate MRI: Analysis from a urologic outpatient clinic1

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical features associated with benign histopathology of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 4 and 5 lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2015 and November 2020, 1161 patients underwent mpMRI/Ultrasound-fusion-guided prostate biopsy (FBx) and concurrent 12-core systematic prostate biopsy (SBx) at the Department of Urology of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany. 848/ 1161 (73%) patients presented with either PI-RADS 4 or 5 index lesion and were retrospectively evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate clinical parameters associated with a negative outcome of PI-RADS 4 or 5 category lesions after FBx. Area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) was conducted using ROC-analysis.

RESULTS

676/848 (79.7%) patients with either PI-RADS 4 or 5 index lesion were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) by FBx and 172/848 (20.3%) patients had a negative biopsy (including the concurrent systematic prostate biopsy), respectively. Prostate volume (P-Vol) (OR 0.99, 95% CI = 0.98-1.00, p = 0.038), pre-biopsy-status (OR 0.48, 95% CI = 0.29-0.79, p = 0.004) and localization of the lesion in the transitional zone (OR 0.28, 95% CI = 0.13-0.60, p = 0.001) were independent risk factors for a negative outcome of FBx. Age (OR 1.09, 95% CI = 1.05-1.13, p < 0.001) and PSA density (PSAD) (OR 75.92, 95% CI = 1.03-5584.61, p = 0.048) increased the risk for PCa diagnosis after FBx. The multivariate logistic regression model combining all clinical characteristics achieved an AUC of 0.802 (95% CI = 0.765-0.835; p < 0.001) with a sensitivity and specificity of 66% and 85%.

CONCLUSION

Lesions with high or highly likelihood of PCa on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) but subsequent negative prostate biopsy occur in a small amount of patients. Localization of the lesion in the transitional zone, prostate volume and prebiopsy were shown to be predictors for benign histopathology of category 4 or 5 lesions on mpMRI. Integration of these features into daily clinical routine could be used for risk-stratification of these patients after negative biopsy of PI-RADS 4 or 5 index lesions.