4.7 Article

Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MRI in predicting muscle invasion by bladder cancer based on the VI-RADS

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-19273-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Korea university College of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares the diagnostic validity of bpMRI and mpMRI based on VI-RADS in predicting muscle invasion by BCa, and finds that both methods have similar performance in this aspect.
This study aimed to compare the diagnostic validity of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) with that of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) based on the Vesicle Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) in predicting muscle invasion by bladder cancer (BCa). We retrospectively examined 357 patients with an initial diagnosis of BCa who underwent preoperative MRI; 257 and 100 patients underwent mpMRI and bpMRI, respectively. Two urogenital radiologists evaluated all bpMRI and mpMRI scans using VI-RADS, and the diagnostic validity of VI-RADS for predicting muscle invasion by BCa was analyzed based on histopathology of the first and/or second transurethral resection of bladder tumors and radical cystectomy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted with the calculation of area under the curves (AUCs), and the level of significance was P<0.05. Both groups showed optimal performance with a VI-RADS score >= 3. BpMRI showed comparable diagnostic performance to mpMRI (reader 1: AUC, 0.903 [0.827-0.954] vs. 0.935 [0.884-0.968], p=0.510; and reader 2: AUC, 0.901 [0.814-0.945] vs. 0.915 [0.874-0.946]; p=0.655). The inter-reader agreement between both readers was excellent (Cohen's kappa value=0.942 and 0.905 for bpMRI and mpMRI, respectively). This comparative study suggests that bpMRI has comparable diagnostic performance to mpMRI and may be an alternative option to predict muscle invasion by BCa.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available