MP08-10 PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CANCER DETECTION RATES OF THE PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2 (2017)

You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology: Uroradiology I1 Apr 2017MP08-10 PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CANCER DETECTION RATES OF THE PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2 Sherif Mehralivand, Sandra Bednarova, Joanna Shih, Francesca Mertan, Sonia Gaur, Maria Merino, Bradford Wood, Peter Pinto, Peter Choyke, and Baris Turkbey Sherif MehralivandSherif Mehralivand More articles by this author , Sandra BednarovaSandra Bednarova More articles by this author , Joanna ShihJoanna Shih More articles by this author , Francesca MertanFrancesca Mertan More articles by this author , Sonia GaurSonia Gaur More articles by this author , Maria MerinoMaria Merino More articles by this author , Bradford WoodBradford Wood More articles by this author , Peter PintoPeter Pinto More articles by this author , Peter ChoykePeter Choyke More articles by this author , and Baris TurkbeyBaris Turkbey More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.297AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) was introduced in 2015. The likelihood of harboring clinically significant prostate cancer (CS PCa) on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is assessed on a five-point scale. We prospectively evaluated cancer detection rates (CDRs) of PI-RADSv2 scores using the new International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading group system as the gold standard. METHODS From May 2015-May 2016, 963 patients underwent prostate mpMRI including T2 weighted (T2W), diffusion weighted, apparent diffusion coefficient maps, high b value (1500-2000s/mm2) and dynamic contrast enhancement sequences. 339/963 patients underwent MRI/US fusion guided biopsy. The highest Gleason score per target lesion was given an ISUP score. Lesion-based CDRs for all PCa and CS PCa (ISUP≥2, ≥Gleason 3+4) were calculated for each PI-RADSv2 score in the entire prostate, peripheral (PZ) and transition zones (TZ). RESULTS CDRs for all and CS PCa for each PIRADSv2 score are shown in Figure 1. PI-RADSv2 score 5 had the highest CDRs for all and CS PCa at 87% and 72%, respectively. PI-RADSv2 score 4 had unexpectedly low CDR for both all and CS PCa (39% and 22%, respectively). Specifically, in the PZ, the CDR of T2W PI-RADSv2 score 4 was significantly higher than the CDR of overall PI-RADSv2 score 4 for all PCa (48% vs. 37%, p=0.01) and CS PCa (33% vs 23%, p=0.002) (Figure 2). CONCLUSIONS CDRs increase with higher PI-RADSv2 scores. CDR of PI-RADSv2 score 4 is low due to a high false positive rate. In the PZ, T2W scores combined with DWI scores, rather than DWI scores alone may improve the CDR for PI-RADSv2 score 4 lesions. Future versions of PI-RADS should take this into account. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e94-e95 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Sherif Mehralivand More articles by this author Sandra Bednarova More articles by this author Joanna Shih More articles by this author Francesca Mertan More articles by this author Sonia Gaur More articles by this author Maria Merino More articles by this author Bradford Wood More articles by this author Peter Pinto More articles by this author Peter Choyke More articles by this author Baris Turkbey More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...