Search

Purpose: To evaluate if subgroups of patients assigned to MRI category PI-RADS 4 regarding clinical and MRI imaging aspects have distinct risks of prostate cancer (PCa) to facilitate adequate clinical management of this population, especially after negative targeted biopsy.Methods: This prospective, IRB approved single center cross-sectional study includes 931 consecutive patients after mp-MRI at 3 T for PCa detection. 193 patients with PI-RADS assessment category 4 received subsequent combined targeted MRI/US fusion-guided and systematic 12-core TRUS-guided biopsy as reference standard and were finally analyzed. The primary endpoint was PCa detection of PI-RADS 4 with MRI subgroup analyses. Secondary endpoints were analyses of clinical data, location of PCa, and detection of targeted biopsy cores.Results: PCa was detected in 119 of 193 patients (62%) including clinically significant PCa (csPCa; Gleason score ≥3 + 4 = 7) in 92 patients (48%). MRI subgroup analysis revealed 95% PCa (73% csPCa) in unambiguous PI-RADS 4 index lesions without additional, interfering signs of prostatitis in the peripheral zone or overlaying signs of severe stromal hyperplasia in the transition zone according to PI-RADS v2. Transition zone confined PI-RADS-4-lesions with overlaying signs of stromal hyperplasia showed PCa only in 11% (4% csPCa). Targeted biopsy cores missed the csPCa index lesion in 7% of the patients. PSA density (PSAD) was significantly higher in PCa patients.Conclusions: Small csPCa can reliably be detected with mp-MRI by experienced readers, but can be missed by targeted MR/US fusion biopsy alone. Targeted re-biopsy of unambiguous (peripheral) PI-RADS-4-lesions is recommended; whereas transition zone confined PI-RADS-4-lesions with overlaying signs of stromal hyperplasia might be followed-up by re-MRI primarily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Purpose Reproducibility of quantitative perfusion analysis of DCE requires a standardized AIF acquisition. However, there are many different approaches for AIF assessment so that the absolute values of perfusion parameters may vary depending on the used method. This study analyzes the influence of the method of AIF determination on quantitative DCE-MRI. Methods In this retrospective, single-center, cohort study three different methods of AIF determination in 50 consecutive patients with multiparametric MRI of the prostate were conducted. As a reference, AIF was selected manually by defining a region of interest in an artery manually (AIF m). The second method (AIF a), based on an automated algorithm and the third, population-derived AIF p where then compared. Primary endpoint were differences in the performance of the perfusion parameters Ktrans, ve and k ep regarding the AIF acquisition methods, secondary endpoints consisted of the evaluation of differences in the peripheral and transition zone of the prostate (PZ, TZ). Results In all three methods, Ktrans, ve , and k ep were significantly higher in PZ than in TZ with Ktrans showing least overlapping. There were no significant differences for Ktrans determined with AIF m and AIF a (0.3 ± 0.2 min−1 for PZ for both and 0.5 ± 0.3 min−1 for TZ in AIF m and 0.4 ± 0.3 min−1 in AIF a), while there were great differences between AIF a and AIF p and AIF m and AIF p (0.1 ± 0.03 min−1 for TZ and PZ in AIF p). Spearman test demonstrated good correlation of values for Ktrans and k ep in all 3 methods (ρ ≥ 0.76). AIF a showed a success rate of 98% in finding the artery. Conclusion AIF a is a recommendable user-independent automatical method to determine quantitative perfusion parameters allowing an objective measurement and saving interactive time for the radiologist. AIF p may be applied as second alternative method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study prospectively evaluates objective image quality (IQ), subjective IQ, and PI-RADS scoring of prostate MRI at 3.0T (3T) and 1.5T (1.5T) within the same patients.Methods: Sixty-three consecutive patients (64±9years) were prospectively included in this non-inferiority trial, powered at 80% to demonstrate a ≤10% difference in signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging (T2WI, DWI) at 1.5T compared to 3T. Secondary endpoints were analysis of subjective IQ and PI-RADS v2 scoring.Results: All patients received multi-parametric prostate MRI on a 3T (T2WI, DWI, DCE) and bi-parametric MRI (T2WI, DWI) on a 1.5T scanner using body coils, respectively. SNR and CNR of T2WI were similar at 1.5T and 3T (p=0.7-1), but of DWI significantly lower at 1.5T (p<0.01). Subjective IQ was significantly better at 3T for both, T2WI and DWI (p<0.01). PI-RADS scores were comparable for both field strengths (p=0.05-1). Inter-reader agreement was excellent for subjective IQ assessment and PI-RADS scoring (k=0.9-1).Conclusion: Prostate MRI at 1.5T can reveal comparable objective image quality in T2WI, but is inferior to 3T in DWI and subjective IQ. However, similar PI-RADS scoring and thus diagnostic performance seems feasible independent of the field strength even without an endorectal coil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose This study evaluates the diagnostic value of the ESUR scoring system (PI-RADS) regarding prostate cancer detection using MR-guided in-bore biopsies (IB-GB) as the reference standard. Methods 566 lesions in 235 consecutive patients (65.7 ± 7.9 years, PSA 9.9 ± 8.5 ng/ml) with a multiparametric (mp)-MRI (T2WI, DWI, DCE) of the prostate at 3 T were scored using the PI-RADS scoring system. PI-RADS single (PS single ), summed (PS sum ), and overall (PS overall ) scores were determined. All lesions were histologically verified by IB-GB. Results Lesions with a PS sum below 9 contained no prostate cancer (PCa) with Gleason score (GS) ≥ 4 + 3 = 7. A PS sum of 13–15 (PS overall V) resulted in 87.8% ( n = 108) in PCa and in 42.3% ( n = 52) in GS ≥ 4 + 3 = 7. Transition zone (TZ) lesions with a PS sum of 13–15 (PS overall V) resulted in 76.3% ( n = 36) in PCa and in 26.3% ( n = 10) in GS ≥ 4 + 3 = 7, whereas for peripheral zone (PZ) lesions cancer detection rate at this score was 92.9% ( n = 79) and 49.4% ( n = 42) for GS ≥ 4 + 3 = 7. Using a threshold of PS sum ≥ 10, sensitivity was 86.0%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 86.2%. For higher grade PCa sensitivity was 98.6%, and NPV was 99.5%. Conclusion A PS sum below 9 excluded a higher grade PCa, whereas lesions with a PS sum ≥ 13 (PS overall V) represented in 88% PCa, and in 42% higher grade PCa. The PS sum or PS overall demonstrated a better diagnostic value for PZ lesions with higher detection rates for higher grade PCa compared to TZ lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]