4.5 Article

Can DCE-MRI reduce the number of PI-RADS v.2 false positive findings? Role of quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters in prostate lesions characterization

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 118, Issue -, Pages 51-57

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.002

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms; Diagnosis; Perfusion imaging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To test the potential impact of pharmacokinetic parameters, derived from DCE-MRI analysis, on the diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv.2 classification in prostate lesions characterization. Method: Among patients who underwent multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) (January 2016-March 2018) followed by histological evaluation (targeted biopsies/prostatectomy), 103 men were retrospectively selected. For each patient the index lesion was identified and pharmacokinetic parameters (Ktrans, Kep, Ve, Vp) were assessed. MRI diagnostic performance in the detection of significant tumors [Gleason Score (GS) >= 7] was assessed, considering PI-RADS >= 3 as positive. Results: GS >= 7 (n = 59) showed higher Ktrans (p < 0.01) and Kep (p = 0.01) compared to GS < 7. At ROC curve analysis, a Ktrans cut-off of 191 x 10(-3) /min was identified to predict the presence of GS >= 7 (AUC:0.75; sensitivity:95%; specificity:61%). Sensitivity and PPV of mpMRI using PI-RADSv.2 were 98% and 61%. Reclassifying PI-RADS >= 3 lesions according to Ktrans cut-off, 22 false positives were shifted to true negatives with 3 false negative findings; PPV raised to 79%. Appling Ktrans cut-off to PI-RADS 3 lesions of peripheral zone (n = 18), 12 true negatives, 4 true positives, 2 false positives were identified. Conclusions: Despite its high sensitivity prostate mpMRI generates many false positive cases: Ktrans in addition to PIRADS v.2 seems to improve MRI-PPV and may help in avoiding redundant biopsies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available