[Analysis of the relationship between PI-RADS scores and the pathological results of targeted biopsy based on MRI].

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the relationship between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores and the pathological results of transperineal magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion guided biopsy. Methods: The clinical data, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results and prostate puncture biopsies of 517 patients who were assigned to PI-RADS score of 4 or 5 and underwent transperineal magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion guided biopsy at The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from June 2019 to March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into the PI-RADS 4 and PI-RADS 5 groups according to their PI-RADS scores and were stratified by their prostate specific antigen (PSA) values (PSA<10 ng/ml vs. PSA 10-20 ng/ml). The pathological negative rates from the biopsy, the distribution of the grade groups according to the grading system by World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP), the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa)between the groups were compared. Results: 369 patients with a PI-RADS score of 4 and 148 patients with a PI-RADS score of 5 were included in our research. The overall detection rates of PCa and CsPCa were 77.8% (402/517) and 66.7% (345/517), respectively. In the PI-RADS 4 group, patients with prostate negative biopsies or in WHO/ISUP 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 grade groups accounted for 28.2%, 12.7%, 20.1%, 17.1%, 18.4% and 3.5%, respectively, whereas in the PI-RADS 5 group the rates were 7.4%, 6.8%, 22.3%, 22.3%, 26.4%, and 14.9%, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). The detection rates of PCa and CsPCa in the PI-RADS 4 group [71.8% (265/369) vs. 59.1% (218/369), P<0.001] were lower than those of the PI-RADS 5 group [92.6% (137/148) vs. 85.8% (127/148), P<0.001]. In the PI-RADS 4 group, the proportion of patients classified into WHO/ISUP 4-5 grade groups was lower than that of patients in the PI-RADS 5 group [22.0% (81/369) vs 41.2% (61/148) (P<0.001)]. The detection rates of PCa and CsPCa in the PSA<10 ng/ml stratification were less than that in the PSA 10-20 ng/ml stratification[74.1% (281/379) vs. 87.7% (121/138), P=0.001], and [60.9% (231/379) vs. 82.6% (114/138), P<0.001]. For patients with PSA<10 ng/ml, the detection rates of PCa and CsPCa in the PI-RADS 4 group were less than those in the PI-RADS5 group [70.9% (217/306) vs. 87.7% (64/73), P=0.003], and [56.2% (172/306) vs. 80.8% (59/73), P<0.001]. For those with a PSA value of 10-20 ng/ml, the detection rates of PCa and CsPCa in the PI-RADS 4 group were less than those in the PI-RADS 5 group [76.2% (48/63) vs. 97.3% (73/75), P<0.001], and [73.0% (46/63) vs. 90.7% (68/75), P=0.006]. There were statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients with prostate negative biopsy and those falling into WHO/ISUP grade groups 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 (P<0.001) between the PI-RADS 4 group and the PI-RADS 5 group in both stratifications. Conclusions: In this study, the detection rates of CsPCa and PCa in the PI-RADS 4 group were less than those in the PI-RADS 5 group. With the increase of PI-RADS scores, the detection rate of high-grade PCa increased. The same results held for patients with PSA<10 ng/ml or with PSA 10-20 ng/ml.