MP32-18 EVALUATING THE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF BIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN MUSCLE-INVASIVE BLADDER CANCER

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP32-18 EVALUATING THE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF BIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN MUSCLE-INVASIVE BLADDER CANCER Qiang Lv, Xiao Yang, Qiang Cao, and Peikun Liu Qiang LvQiang Lv More articles by this author , Xiao YangXiao Yang More articles by this author , Qiang CaoQiang Cao More articles by this author , and Peikun LiuPeikun Liu More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003265.18AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bp-MRI) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). METHODS: The acquired images are divided into two sets. Set 1 (bp-MRI) included the axial, sagittal, coronal T2WI, and axial DWI/ADC images. Set 2 (mp-MRI) included Set 1 images in addition to DCE images. mp-MRI was evaluated according to VI-RADS score guideline, and bp-MRI was evaluated according to two types of MRI score criteria. bp-MRI (criteria 1, C1): VI-RADS score was determined 2 when SC 3 and DW 2 (SC 3+DW 2). bp-MRI (criteria 2, C2): VI-RADS score was determined 3 when SC 3 and DW 2. VI-RADS score ≥3 and 4 were respectively used as the cut-off value for predicting MIBC. The sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate (FPR), and false negative rate (FNR) of mp-MRI, bp-MRI (C1), and bp-MRI (C2) were calculated, as well as ROC and areas under the curves (AUCs). RESULTS: When the cut-off value was ≥3, the sensitivity, specificity, FPR and FNR of bp-MRI (C1) were 0.91, 0.91, 0.19 and 0.04, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, FPR and FNR of bp-MRI (C2) were 0.91, 0.83, 0.33 and 0.04, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, FPR and FNR of mp-MRI were 0.91, 0.89, 0.23 and 0.04, respectively. When the cut-off value was ≥4, both bp-MRI (C1) and bp-MRI (C2) results were the same. The sensitivity, specificity, FPR and FNR were 0.75, 0.99, 0.04 and 0.09, respectively. Using mp-MRI, the sensitivity, specificity, FPR and FNR were 0.84, 0.99, 0.04 and 0.06, respectively. The AUCs for bp-MRI (C1), bp-MRI (C2) and mp-MRI were 0.953, 0.942 and 0.955, respectively. No significant difference of AUC in predicting MIBC was observed between bp-MRI (C1) and mp-MRI (P=0.512). bp-MRI (C1) and mp-MRI both had significant higher diagnostic accuracy than bp-MRI (C2) in predicting MIBC (p=0.029 and 0.037, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions bp-MRI (C1) and mp-MRI demonstrated comparable diagnostic accuracy in predicting MIBC. bp-MRI (C1) had better diagnostic accuracy than bp-MRI (C2) in predicting MIBC. Compared with mp-MRI, patients may benefit from RC or other aggressive treatments when bp-MRI (C1) prompted MIBC. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e448 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Qiang Lv More articles by this author Xiao Yang More articles by this author Qiang Cao More articles by this author Peikun Liu More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...