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

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.

Prior Negative Biopsy, PSA Density, and Anatomic Location Impact Cancer Detection Rate of MRI-Targeted PI-RADS Index Lesions

BACKGROUND

MRI fusion prostate biopsy has improved the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSC). Continued refinements in predicting the pre-biopsy probability of CSC are essential for optimal patient counseling. We investigated potential factors related to improved cancer detection rates (CDR) of CSC in patients with PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions.

METHODS

The pathology of 980 index lesions in 980 patients sampled by transrectal mpMRI-targeted prostate biopsy across four medical centers between 2017-2020 was reviewed. PI-RADS lesion distribution included 291 PI-RADS-5, 374 PI-RADS-4, and 315 PI-RADS-3. We compared CDR of index PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions based on location (TZ) vs. (PZ), PSA density (PSAD), and history of prior negative conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS).

RESULTS

Mean age, PSA, prostate volume, and level of prior negative TRUS biopsy were 66 years (43-90), 7.82 ng/dL (5.6-11.2), 54 cm3 (12-173), and 456/980 (46.5%), respectively. Higher PSAD, no prior history of negative TRUS biopsy, and PZ lesions were associated with higher CDR. Stratified CDR highlighted significant variance across subgroups. CDR for a PI-RADS-5 score, PZ lesion with PSAD ≥ 0.15, and prior negative biopsy was 77%. Conversely, the CDR rate for a PI-RADS-4 score, TZ lesion with PSAD < 0.15, and prior negative biopsy was significantly lower at 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

For index PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions, CDR varied significantly based on location, prior history of negative TRUS biopsy, and PSAD. Such considerations are critical when counseling on the merits and potential yield of prostate needle biopsy.

Integration of PSAd and multiparametric MRI to forecast biopsy outcomes in biopsy-naïve patients with PSA 4~20 ng/ml

Introduction

This study aims to investigate whether the transrectal ultrasound-guided combined biopsy (CB) improves the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in biopsy-naïve patients. We also aimed to compare the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2.1) score, ADC values, and PSA density (PSAd) in predicting csPCa by the combined prostate biopsy.

Methods

This retrospective and single-center study included 389 biopsy-naïve patients with PSA level 4~20 ng/ml, of whom 197 underwent prebiopsy mpMRI of the prostate. The mpMRI-based scores (PI-RADS v2.1 scores and ADC values) and clinical parameters were collected and evaluated by logistic regression analyses. Multivariable models based on the mpMRI-based scores and clinical parameters were developed by the logistic regression analyses to forecast biopsy outcomes of CB in biopsy-naïve patients. The ROC curves measured by the AUC values, calibration plots, and DCA were performed to assess multivariable models.

Results

The CB can detect more csPCa compared with TRUSB (32.0% vs. 53%). The Spearman correlation revealed that Gleason scores of the prostate biopsy significantly correlated with PI-RADS scores and ADC values. The multivariate logistic regression confirmed that PI-RADS scores 4, 5, and prostate volume were important predictors of csPCa. The PI-RADS+ADC+PSAd (PAP) model had the highest AUCs of 0.913 for predicting csPCa in biopsy-naïve patients with PSA level 4~20 ng/ml. When the biopsy risk threshold of the PAP model was greater than or equal to 0.10, 51% of patients could avoid an unnecessary biopsy, and only 5% of patients with csPCa were missed.

Conclusion

The prebiopsy mpMRI and the combined prostate biopsy have a high CDR of csPCa in biopsy-naïve patients. A multivariable model based on the mpMRI-based scores and PSAd could provide a reference for clinicians in forecasting biopsy outcomes in biopsy-naïve patients with PSA 4~20 ng/ml and make a more comprehensive assessment during the decision-making of the prostate biopsy.

PI-RADS v2.1 and PSAD for the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer among patients with PSA levels of 4-10 ng/ml

This study intended to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) with PSA levels of 4-10 ng/ml. Between July 2018 and June 2022, a total of 453 patients with PSA levels of 4-10 ng/ml were retrospectively included, which were randomly assigned to the training group (323 patients) and validation group (130 patients). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with their 95% CI were calculated. The overall diagnostic performance was determined with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and an integrated nomogram combining PI-RADS score and PSAD was constructed and tested in a validation cohort. In the training group, the AUC for PI-RADS 2.1 and PSAD alone were 0.875 (95% CI 0.834-0.916) and 0.712 (95% CI 0.648-0.775). At the cutoff PI-RADS score ≥ 4, the sensitivity and specificity were 86.2% (95% CI 77.4-1.9%) and 84.7% (95% CI 79.6-88.8%), respectively. For PSAD, the sensitivity and specificity were 73.3% (95% CI 63.0-82.4%) and 62.1% (95% CI 55.8-68.5%) at the cutoff 0.162 ng/ml/ml. While combining PI-RADS with PSAD, the diagnostic performance was improved significantly, with AUC of 0.893 (95% CI 0.853-0.933). In the validation group, the nomogram yielded a AUC of 0.871 (95% CI 0.807-0.934), which is significantly higher than PI-RADS alone (0.829, 95% CI 0.759-0.899, P = 0.02). For patients with PSA levels of 4-10 ng/ml, PSAD demonstrated moderate diagnostic accuracy whereas PI-RADS showed high performance. By combination of PSAD and PI-RADS together, the diagnostic performance could be improved significantly.

PI-RADS v2.1 evaluation of prostate "nodule in nodule" variants: clinical, imaging, and pathological features

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the correlation among the imaging features of prostate "nodule in nodule," clinical prostate indices, and pathology results.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the prostate images from 47 male patients who underwent MRI scans and pathological biopsy from January 2022 to July 2023. Two radiologists (R1/R2) evaluated the morphology and signal intensity of the "nodule in nodule" in a double-blind manner and calculated the PI-RADS v2.1 score, which was compared with clinical prostate indices and pathological results.

RESULTS

34.04% (16/47) of patients were pathologically diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), free/t PSA, PSA density (PSAD), and prostate gland volume (PGV) were significantly different between csPCa patients and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with prostate "nodule in nodule". R1/R2 detected 17/17 prostate "nodule in nodule" pathologically confirmed as csPCa on MRI; 10.60% (16/151) (R1) and 11.11% (17/153) (R2) had diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) PI-RADS v2.1 score of 4, and 0.66% (1/151) (R1) had a score of 3. The percentages of encapsulated, circumscribed, and atypical nodules and obscured margins were 0.00% (0/151), 0.00% (0/151), 5.96% (9/151), and 5.30% (8/151), respectively, for R1, and 0.00% (0/153), 0.00% (0/153), 5.88% (9/153), and 4.58% (7/153) for R2.

CONCLUSION

When the inner nodules of "nodule in nodule" lesions in PI-RADS v2.1 category 1 in the TZ show incomplete capsulation or obscured margins, they are considered atypical nodules and might be upgraded to PI-RADS v2.1 category 3 if they exhibit marked diffusion restriction. However, further validation is needed.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study first analyzed the relationship between clinical and pathological findings and the size, margin, and multimodal MRI manifestations of the prostate "nodule in nodule." These findings could improve the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate lesions.

KEY POINTS

• The margin of the prostate inner nodules affects the PI-RADS v2.1 score. • The morphology of prostate "nodule in nodule" is related to their pathology. • The PI-RADS v2.1 principle requires consideration of prostate "nodule in nodule" variants.

Prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer using a novel 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT and multiparametric MRI-based model

Background

There are some limitations in the commonly used methods for the detection of prostate cancer. There is a lack of nomograms based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) for the prediction of prostate cancer. The study seeks to compare the performance of mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT, and design a novel predictive model capable of predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) before biopsy based on a combination of 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT, mpMRI, and patient clinical parameters.

Methods

From September 2020 to June 2021, we prospectively enrolled 112 consecutive patients with no prior history of prostate cancer who underwent both 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT and mpMRI prior to biopsy at our clinical center. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify predictors of csPCa, with a predictive model and its nomogram incorporating 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT, mpMRI, and the clinical predictors then being generated. The constructed model was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis, and further validated with the internal and external cohorts.

Results

The model incorporated prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd), Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category, and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and it exhibited excellent predictive efficacy when applying to evaluate both training and validation cohorts [area under the curve (AUC): 0.936 and 0.940, respectively]. Compared with SUVmax alone, the model demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance with improved specificity (0.910, 95% CI: 0.824-0.963) and positive predictive values (0.811, 95% CI: 0.648-0.920). Calibration curve and decision curve analysis further confirmed that the model exhibited a high degree of clinical net benefit and low error rate.

Conclusions

The constructed model in this study was capable of accurately predicting csPCa prior to biopsy with excellent discriminative ability. As such, this model has the potential to be an effective non-invasive approach for the diagnosis of csPCa.

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 (I 2= 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.