Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy

Vol. 45 (3): 486-494, May – June, 2019

doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0564


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

George de Queiroz Rozas 1, Lucas Scatigno Saad 1, Homero José de Farias e Melo 2, Henrique Armando Azevedo Gabrielle 3, Jacob Szejnfeld 1
1 Departamento de Diagnóstico por Imagem, Universidade Federal de São Paulo – USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil; 2 Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil; 3 CURA Imagem e Diagnóstico, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To identify the group of patients who could safely avoid prostate biopsy based on the findings of multiparametric prostate resonance imaging (MRmp), param¬eterized 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, specific¬ity, 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 corre¬sponded 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.

Keywords: Prostate; Biopsy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging

[Full Text]


print