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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |