BioMed research international · 2013
Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for classifying mpMRI findings in men with suspicion of prostate cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Junker Daniel, Schäfer Georg, Edlinger Michael, Kremser Christian, Bektic Jasmin, Horninger Wolfgang, Jaschke Werner, Aigner Friedrich
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ESUR scoring system (PI-RADS) for multiparametric MRI of the prostate in clinical routine and to define a reliable way to generate an overall PI-RADS score.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients with a history of negative prebiopsies, who underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI from October 2011 to April 2013 (n = 143): PI-RADS scores for each single modality were defined. To generate the overall PI-RADS score, an algorithm based approach summing up each single-modality score to a sum-score was compared to a more subjective approach, weighting the single modalities dependent on the radiologist's impression. Because of ongoing cancer suspicion 73 patients underwent targeted mpMRI-ultrasound image fusion rebiopsy. For this group thresholds for tumor incidences and malignancy were calculated.
RESULTS: 39 (53%) out of 73 targeted rebiopsies were cancer positive. The PI-RADS score correlated well with tumor incidence (AUC of 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94) and malignancy (AUC 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). Regarding the sum-score a threshold of ≥ 10 turned out to be reliable for cancer detection (sensitivity 90%, specificity 62%) and for ≥ 13 for indicating higher malignancy (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3) (sensitivity 80%, specificity 86%). To generate the overall PI-RADS score, the use of an algorithm based approach was more reliable than that of the approach based on the radiologist's impression.
CONCLUSION: The presented scoring system correlates well with tumor incidence and malignancy. To generate the overall PI-RADS score, it seems to be advisable to use an algorithm based instead of a subjective approach.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients with a history of negative prebiopsies, who underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI from October 2011 to April 2013 (n = 143): PI-RADS scores for each single modality were defined. To generate the overall PI-RADS score, an algorithm based approach summing up each single-modality score to a sum-score was compared to a more subjective approach, weighting the single modalities dependent on the radiologist's impression. Because of ongoing cancer suspicion 73 patients underwent targeted mpMRI-ultrasound image fusion rebiopsy. For this group thresholds for tumor incidences and malignancy were calculated.
RESULTS: 39 (53%) out of 73 targeted rebiopsies were cancer positive. The PI-RADS score correlated well with tumor incidence (AUC of 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94) and malignancy (AUC 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). Regarding the sum-score a threshold of ≥ 10 turned out to be reliable for cancer detection (sensitivity 90%, specificity 62%) and for ≥ 13 for indicating higher malignancy (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3) (sensitivity 80%, specificity 86%). To generate the overall PI-RADS score, the use of an algorithm based approach was more reliable than that of the approach based on the radiologist's impression.
CONCLUSION: The presented scoring system correlates well with tumor incidence and malignancy. To generate the overall PI-RADS score, it seems to be advisable to use an algorithm based instead of a subjective approach.