These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer.
    Author: Tamada T, Kido A, Takeuchi M, Yamamoto A, Miyaji Y, Kanomata N, Sone T.
    Journal: Eur J Radiol; 2019 Dec; 121():108704. PubMed ID: 31669798.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 and v2.1 for detecting transition zone prostate cancer (TZPC) on multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI). METHOD: Fifty-eight patients with elevated PSA levels underwent mpMRI at 3 T including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and subsequent MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided prostate-targeted biopsy (MRGB). The standard of reference was MRGB-derived histopathology. Two readers independently assessed each TZ lesion, assigning a score of 1-5 for T2WI, a score of 1-5 for DWI, and the overall PI-RADS assessment category according to PI-RADS v2 and v2.1. The diagnostic performance of the two methods was compared in terms of inter-reader agreement, diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: Of the 58 patients, 26 were diagnosed with PC (GS = 3 + 3, n = 9; GS = 3 + 4, n = 9; GS = 3 + 5, n = 1; GS = 4 + 3, n = 4; GS = 4 + 4, n = 3) and 32 with benign lesions. Regarding inter-reader agreement of overall PI-RADS assessment category, the kappa value was 0.580 for v2 and 0.645 for v2.1. For both readers, there was no difference in diagnostic sensitivity between the versions (p ≥ 0.500). For reader 1, the diagnostic specificity was higher for v2.1 (p = 0.002), and was similar for reader 2 (p = 1.000). For both readers, AUC tended to be higher for v2.1 than for v2, but the difference was not significant (0.786 vs. 0.847 for reader 1, p = 0.052; and 0.808 vs. 0.858 for reader 2, p = 0.197). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that compared with PI-RADS v2, PI-RADS v2.1 could be preferable for evaluating TZ lesions.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]