Cargando…

Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVES: To identify the group of patients who could safely avoid prostate biopsy based on the findings of multiparametric prostate resonance imaging (MRmp), parameterized with PI-RADS v2, using prostate biopsy as reference test and to assess the sensitivity and specificity of mpMR in identifying...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rozas, George de Queiroz, Saad, Lucas Scatigno, Melo, Homero José de Farias e, Gabrielle, Henrique Armando Azevedo, Szejnfeld, Jacob
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31038866
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0564
_version_ 1783458008352686080
author Rozas, George de Queiroz
Saad, Lucas Scatigno
Melo, Homero José de Farias e
Gabrielle, Henrique Armando Azevedo
Szejnfeld, Jacob
author_facet Rozas, George de Queiroz
Saad, Lucas Scatigno
Melo, Homero José de Farias e
Gabrielle, Henrique Armando Azevedo
Szejnfeld, Jacob
author_sort Rozas, George de Queiroz
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To identify the group of patients who could safely avoid prostate biopsy based on the findings of multiparametric prostate resonance imaging (MRmp), parameterized with PI-RADS v2, using prostate biopsy as reference test and to assess the sensitivity and specificity of mpMR in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer using prostate biopsy as a reference test. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and forty two patients with suspected prostate cancer were evaluated with mpMR and prostate biopsy. Agreement between imaging findings and histopathological findings was assessed using the Kappa index. The accuracy of mpMR in relation to biopsy was assessed by calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: A total of 342 biopsies were performed. In 201 (61.4%), mpMR had a negative result for cancer, which was confirmed on biopsy in 182 (53%) of the cases, 17 (4.9%) presented non-clinically significant cancer and only 2 (0.5%) clinically significant cancer. 131 (38.3%) patients had a positive biopsy. Clinically significant cancer corresponded to 83 (34.2%), of which 81 (97.5%) had a positive result in mpMR. Considering only the clinically significant cancers the mpMR had a sensitivity of 97.6%, specificity of 76.8%, PPV 57.4% and VPN of 99%. CONCLUSIONS: mpMR is a useful tool to safely identify which patients at risk for prostate cancer need to undergo biopsy and has high sensitivity and specificity in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6786118
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67861182019-10-23 Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy Rozas, George de Queiroz Saad, Lucas Scatigno Melo, Homero José de Farias e Gabrielle, Henrique Armando Azevedo Szejnfeld, Jacob Int Braz J Urol Original Article OBJECTIVES: To identify the group of patients who could safely avoid prostate biopsy based on the findings of multiparametric prostate resonance imaging (MRmp), parameterized with PI-RADS v2, using prostate biopsy as reference test and to assess the sensitivity and specificity of mpMR in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer using prostate biopsy as a reference test. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and forty two patients with suspected prostate cancer were evaluated with mpMR and prostate biopsy. Agreement between imaging findings and histopathological findings was assessed using the Kappa index. The accuracy of mpMR in relation to biopsy was assessed by calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: A total of 342 biopsies were performed. In 201 (61.4%), mpMR had a negative result for cancer, which was confirmed on biopsy in 182 (53%) of the cases, 17 (4.9%) presented non-clinically significant cancer and only 2 (0.5%) clinically significant cancer. 131 (38.3%) patients had a positive biopsy. Clinically significant cancer corresponded to 83 (34.2%), of which 81 (97.5%) had a positive result in mpMR. Considering only the clinically significant cancers the mpMR had a sensitivity of 97.6%, specificity of 76.8%, PPV 57.4% and VPN of 99%. CONCLUSIONS: mpMR is a useful tool to safely identify which patients at risk for prostate cancer need to undergo biopsy and has high sensitivity and specificity in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia 2019-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6786118/ /pubmed/31038866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0564 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Rozas, George de Queiroz
Saad, Lucas Scatigno
Melo, Homero José de Farias e
Gabrielle, Henrique Armando Azevedo
Szejnfeld, Jacob
Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy
title Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy
title_full Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy
title_fullStr Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy
title_full_unstemmed Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy
title_short Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy
title_sort impact of pi-rads v2 on indication of prostate biopsy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31038866
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0564
work_keys_str_mv AT rozasgeorgedequeiroz impactofpiradsv2onindicationofprostatebiopsy
AT saadlucasscatigno impactofpiradsv2onindicationofprostatebiopsy
AT melohomerojosedefariase impactofpiradsv2onindicationofprostatebiopsy
AT gabriellehenriquearmandoazevedo impactofpiradsv2onindicationofprostatebiopsy
AT szejnfeldjacob impactofpiradsv2onindicationofprostatebiopsy