Cargando…
The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for clinically significant prostate cancer and to determine whether applying Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score could improve the diagnostic pathway be...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Turkish Association of Urology
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10192785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37877859 http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.220199 |
_version_ | 1785043701172535296 |
---|---|
author | Tezcan, Sehnaz Ulu Ozturk, Funda Bekar, Ulku Ozturk, Erdem |
author_facet | Tezcan, Sehnaz Ulu Ozturk, Funda Bekar, Ulku Ozturk, Erdem |
author_sort | Tezcan, Sehnaz |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for clinically significant prostate cancer and to determine whether applying Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score could improve the diagnostic pathway besides the biochemical characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 199 patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were included. Logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic curve were performed to determine independent predictors and to compare diagnostic performance of indicators for clinically significant prostate cancer. Two models were established. In model 1, the diagnostic performance of prostate-specific antigen- and prostate-specific antigen density-derived parameters were evaluated. In model 2, the prediction potential of model 1 plus Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score was analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer by histopathological analysis (32.1%). In model 1, a prostate-specific antigen density >0.15 was labeled as the strongest predictor of malignancy. In model 2, a prostate-specific antigen density >0.15, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3, and a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 demonstrated the strongest association with malignancy. Among these parameters, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 (P = .003) was found to be the most robust predictor for malignancy, followed by a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3 (P = .012). The multivariate analysis revealed higher accuracy in model 2 (76.9%) than in model 1 (67.8%). The area under curve values with respect to prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen density, model 1, and model 2 were 0.632, 0.741, 0.656, and 0.798, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results indicated that Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score and prostate-specific antigen density are independent predictors for the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. Both prostate-specific antigen density and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score should be risen to prominence in the decision of biopsy instead of PSA. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10192785 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Turkish Association of Urology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101927852023-05-19 The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Tezcan, Sehnaz Ulu Ozturk, Funda Bekar, Ulku Ozturk, Erdem Urol Res Pract Original Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for clinically significant prostate cancer and to determine whether applying Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score could improve the diagnostic pathway besides the biochemical characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 199 patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were included. Logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic curve were performed to determine independent predictors and to compare diagnostic performance of indicators for clinically significant prostate cancer. Two models were established. In model 1, the diagnostic performance of prostate-specific antigen- and prostate-specific antigen density-derived parameters were evaluated. In model 2, the prediction potential of model 1 plus Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score was analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer by histopathological analysis (32.1%). In model 1, a prostate-specific antigen density >0.15 was labeled as the strongest predictor of malignancy. In model 2, a prostate-specific antigen density >0.15, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3, and a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 demonstrated the strongest association with malignancy. Among these parameters, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 (P = .003) was found to be the most robust predictor for malignancy, followed by a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3 (P = .012). The multivariate analysis revealed higher accuracy in model 2 (76.9%) than in model 1 (67.8%). The area under curve values with respect to prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen density, model 1, and model 2 were 0.632, 0.741, 0.656, and 0.798, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results indicated that Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score and prostate-specific antigen density are independent predictors for the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. Both prostate-specific antigen density and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score should be risen to prominence in the decision of biopsy instead of PSA. Turkish Association of Urology 2023-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10192785/ /pubmed/37877859 http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.220199 Text en 2023 authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Content of this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) |
spellingShingle | Original Article Tezcan, Sehnaz Ulu Ozturk, Funda Bekar, Ulku Ozturk, Erdem The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer |
title | The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer |
title_full | The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer |
title_fullStr | The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer |
title_short | The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer |
title_sort | impact of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 and prostate-specific antigen density in the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10192785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37877859 http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.220199 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tezcansehnaz theimpactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer AT uluozturkfunda theimpactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer AT bekarulku theimpactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer AT ozturkerdem theimpactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer AT tezcansehnaz impactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer AT uluozturkfunda impactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer AT bekarulku impactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer AT ozturkerdem impactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer |