Evaluation of PI-RADS V2 in improvement of imaging diagnostic efficacy for prostate cancer

Xiaojing HE; Dajing GUO; Wei JIANG; Xue ZHOU; Xinjie LIU; Jun ZHOU; Yangyang LIU

doi:10.16016/j.1000-5404.201703045

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Evaluation of PI-RADS V2 in improvement of imaging diagnostic efficacy for prostate cancer

Clinical Medicine | 更新时间：2026-01-09

- Evaluation of PI-RADS V2 in improvement of imaging diagnostic efficacy for prostate cancer
- Journal of Third Military Medical University Vol. 39, Issue 18, Pages: 1841-1847(2017)
- 作者机构：
  
  400010 重庆，重庆医科大学附属第二医院放射科
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
  
  the National Natural Science Foundation for Young Scholars of China(81401382);the Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Chongqing Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission(2016MSXM024)
- DOI：10.16016/j.1000-5404.201703045
  CLC： R197.324; R445.2;R737.25
- Received：07 March 2017，
  
  Revised：2017-04-26，
  
  Published：30 September 2017
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
Xiaojing HE, Dajing GUO, Wei JIANG, et al. Evaluation of PI-RADS V2 in improvement of imaging diagnostic efficacy for prostate cancer[J]. Journal of Third Military Medical University, 2017, 39(18): 1841-1847.
DOI：

Xiaojing HE, Dajing GUO, Wei JIANG, et al. Evaluation of PI-RADS V2 in improvement of imaging diagnostic efficacy for prostate cancer[J]. Journal of Third Military Medical University, 2017, 39(18): 1841-1847. DOI： 10.16016/j.1000-5404.201703045.

摘要

目的

探讨前列腺影像报告和数据系统第2版(PI-RADS V2) 提高前列腺癌影像诊断效能的应用价值。

方法

初级、中级、高级职称医师各3名，根据各自经验分别对符合入组标准的76例前列腺MRI图像进行经验评分，然后根据PI-RADS V2的评分标准进行2次评分。分析2次PI-RADS V2评分及3个层次医师PI-RADS V2评分的一致性。计算并比较3个层次医师经验评分与PI-RADS V2评分的相关性、经验诊断与PI-RADS V2诊断结果的一致性，对比前列腺癌检出的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值，并绘制ROC曲线。

结果

2次PI-RADS V2评分结果高度一致，3个层次医师PI-RADS V2评分具有较好一致性，3个层次医师经验诊断评分与PI-RADS V2评分

正相关(

值分别为0.672、0.805、0.890)。3个层次医师及PI-RADS V2诊断正确率呈递增趋势，无效率呈递减趋势，错误率3个层次医师呈递减趋势，PI-RADS V2错误率略高于高级医师。ROC曲线结果显示高级医师的诊断准确性最高，其次为PI-RADS V2。PI-RADS V2诊断敏感度最高，其次为高级医师。高级医师特异度最高，其次为PI-RADS V2。

结论

PI-RADS V2具有良好的可重复性，对于中级、初级医师，PI-RADS V2可以显著提高其对前列腺癌影像诊断效能。

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the value of prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS V2) in improving the diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer.

Methods

Nine radiologists were divided into junior

attending and senior groups according to their titles

and each group had 3 radiologists. They firstly scored the prostate MR images of 76 cases meeting our inclusion criteria based on their experience

then scored the images again after learning the standards of PI-RADS V2

and finally made the scoring according to PI-RADS V2 for the second time in 1 week later. The consistency of the first and second scores of PI-RADS V2 with the results based on their experience was analyzed

and the correlation between the experience-gained scores of the 3 groups of radiologists and the PI-RADS V2 scores were calculated and compared. The diagnoses based on experience and on PI-RADS V2 were analyzed for the consistency. The sensitivity

specificity

positive predictive value

negative predictive value for prostate cancer of the experience and PI-RADS V2 scoring systems were detected with receiver operative characteristic (ROC) and the results were compared between the 2 systems.

Results

The PI-RADS V2 scores of 2 times were highly consistent

and good consistency was also found among the results from the 3 groups of radiologists based on PI-RADS V2. The experience-gained scores of the 3 groups were positively correlated with the scores of PI-RADS V2

respectively (

=0.672

0.805

0.890). With the increase of the 3-rank of radiologists

the diagnostic accuracy of experience-gained results and PI-RADS V2 results showed an increasing trend

the inefficiencies were in a decreasing trend

and the error rates in a decreasing trend. The error rate of PI-RADS V2 was higher than that of the senior radiologists. The ROC curve showed that senior radiologists had the highest diagnostic performance

followed by PI-RADS V2. PI-RADS V2 had the highest diagnostic sensitivity

followed by senior radiologists. Senior radiologists had the highest specificity

followed by PI-RADS V2.

Conclusion

PI-RADS V2 has excellent repeatability. For the junior and attending radiologists

PI-RADS V2 could significantly improve their diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer.

关键词

Keywords

references

DELONGCHAMPS N B, ROUANNE M, FLAM T, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localizationof prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging[J]. BJU Int, 2011, 107(9): 1411-1418. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09808.x.

中华放射学杂志前列腺疾病诊疗工作组, 中华放射学杂志编辑委员会.前列腺癌MR检查和诊断共识[J].中华放射学杂志, 2014, 48(7): 531-534. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2014.07.002.

Prostate disease diagnosis and treatment working group of Chinese Journal of Radiology, Editorial board of Chinese Journal of Radiology. MR examination and diagnostic consensus of prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Radio, 2014, 48(7): 531-534. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2014.07.002.

HOEKS C M, BARENTSZ J O, HAMBROCK T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging[J]. Radiology, 2011, 261(1): 46-66. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11091822.

WANG R, WANG H, ZHAO C, et al. Evaluation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detection and prediction of prostate cancer[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(6): e0130207. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130207.

BARENTSZ J O, RICHENBERG J, CLEMENTS R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012[J]. Eur Radiol, 2012, 22(4): 746-757. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.

VOURGANTI S, RASTINEHAD A, YERRAM N K, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies[J]. J Urol, 2012, 188(6): 2152-2157. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025.

HAFFNER J, LEMAITRE L, PUECH P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection[J]. BJU Int, 2011, 108 (8Pt2): E171-E178. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x.

WEINREB J C, BARENTSZ J O, CHOYKE P L, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(1): 16-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.

PART S Y, JUNG D C, OH Y T, et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS Version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers[J]. Radiology, 2016, 280(1): 108-116. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.16151133.

王蕊, 高歌, 王慧慧, 等.评价第二版前列腺影像报告和数据系统对前列腺临床显著癌的检出效能[J].中国医学影像技术, 2016, 32(12): 1799-1802. DOI: 10.13929/j.1003-3289.2016.12.002.

WANG R, GAO G, WANG H H, et al. Evaluation of diagnostic efficacy of Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System Version 2 in detection of prostate clinically significant cancer[J]. Chin J Med Imaging Technol, 2016, 32(12): 1799-1802. DOI: 10.13929/j.1003-3289.2016.12.002.

BALDISSEROTTO M, NETO E J, CARVALHAL G, et al. Validation of PI-RADS v.2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2016, 44(5): 1354-1359. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25284.

姬广海, 孛茹婷, 郑义, 等.基于第2版前列腺影像报告和数据系统的多参数MRI诊断外周带前列腺癌[J].中国医学影像技术, 2016, 32(9): 1414-1418. DOI: 10.13929/j.1003-3289.2016.09.025.

JI G H, BO R T, ZHENG Y, et al. Multiparametric MRI based on prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 in diagnosis of peripheral prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Med Imaging Technol, 2016, 32(9): 1414-1418. DOI: 10.13929/j.1003-3289.2016.09.025.

MULLER B G, SHIH J H, SANKINENI S, et al. Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging[J]. Radiology, 2015, 277(3): 741-750. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142818.

牛翔科, 刘伟, 肖建明, 等. PI-RADS v2在前列腺癌中的诊断价值分析[J].四川大学学报(医学版), 2016, 47(5): 796-799. DOI: 10.13464/j.scuxbyxb.2016.05.034.

NIU X K, LIU W, XIAO J M, et al. Diagnostic Value of PI-RADS v2 in Prostate Cancer[J]. J Sichuan Univ (Med Sci Edi), 2016, 47(5): 796-799. DOI: 10.13464/j.scuxbyxb. 2016.05.034.

POLANEC S, HELBICH TH, BICKEL H, et al.Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2016, 85(6): 1125-1131. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad. 2016.03.025.

KASEL-SEIBERT M, LEHMANN T, ASCHENBACH R, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2016, 85(4): 726-731. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.011.

HAMOEN E H, DE ROOIJ M, WITJES J A, et al. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System(PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: A diagnostic meta-analysis[J]. Eur Urol, 2015, 67(6): 1112-1121. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.033.

ROSENKRANTZ A B, GINOCCHIO L A, CORNFELD D, et al.Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists[J]. Radiology, 2016, 280(3): 793-804. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016152542.

Views

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Value of histogram analysis of quantitative parameters in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of prostate cancer

Tetramethylpyrazine hydrochloride inhibits proliferation and apoptosis in human prostate cancer PC3 cells through Akt signaling pathway

Effect of human mesenchymal stem cells expressing secreted protein IFN-β/EGFP on proliferation in prostate cancer cells line PC-3

Related Author

Shanwei BAI

Weijuan CHEN

Wei WU

Qian LING

Xiaojing HE

Yindeng LUO

Dajing GUO

Jiayi YU

Related Institution

No data

⁰