Impact of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2, on MRI Diagnosis for Extracapsular Extension of Prostate Cancer

• Published in: American journal of roentgenology (1976) Vol. 209; no. 2; pp. W76 - W84
• Main Authors: Matsuoka, Yoh, Ishioka, Junichiro, Tanaka, Hiroshi, Kimura, Tomo, Yoshida, Soichiro, Saito, Kazutaka, Fujii, Yasuhisa, Kihara, Kazunori
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.08.2017
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biopsy; Humans; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Staging; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen - metabolism; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery; Risk Factors; extracapsular extension; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2; prostate cancer; MRI
• ISSN: 0361-803X; 1546-3141
• DOI: 10.2214/ajr.16.17163

The purpose of this study is to validate the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADSv2), in assessing extracapsular extension (ECE), compared with PI-RADS, version 1 (PI-RADSv1). A total of 210 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent MRI and radical prostatectomy. Two readers independently interpreted the MR images. In PI-RADSv1, 5-point ECE risk scoring was used. In PI-RADSv2, ECE criteria included morphologic features and a tumor-capsule contact length (CL) greater than 10 mm. The diagnostic performance of each PI-RADS version and the cutoff CL were evaluated. ECE was found in 56 patients (26.7%). In PI-RADSv1, maximal accuracy was achieved with a risk score of 3 or greater. At this threshold, positive findings on PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 were identified in 21.0-34.3% and 49.0-51.4% of patients, respectively. Compared with PI-RADSv1, PI-RADSv2 had higher negative predictive values (84.9-89.1% vs 96.3-97.1%, respectively; p = 0.003 and 0.021, for each reader). PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 had positive predictive values of 56.9-70.5% and 49.1-50.5%, respectively (p = 0.025 and 0.300, respectively). Interobserver kappa values for PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 were 0.511 and 0.781, respectively. The best cutoff CL was greater than 10 mm among patients without morphologic features of ECE. For patients positive for ECE on the basis of PI-RADSv2 but not PI-RADSv1, 73.3-74.1% of prostate cancer cases with a biopsy Gleason score of 7 or less and 35.7-44.4% of cases with a biopsy Gleason score of 8 or higher were overstaged. PI-RADSv2 reduces understaging and improves interobserver agreement in ECE assessment. However, overstaging is a concern, and the biopsy Gleason score may have a complementary role in reducing overstaging.