Abstract
Objective To explore the difference in efficacy between multiparametric MRI (Mp-MRI) based on prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2) and abbreviated biparametric MRI (Bp-MRI) in detecting prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and to evaluate the consistency of image interpretation between different readers. Methods The imaging, pathological and clinical data of patients with prostatic Mp-MRI in our hospital from February 2015 to June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. At the beginning, 250 patients were randomly selected. Two radiologists visually evaluated the images of those patients using two 5-point scoring schemes based on Mp-MRI and Bp-MRI. The remaining cases were independently proceeded by one of the radiologists using two schemes respectively. Weighted Kappa test was used to assess the consistency of the results interpreted by the two radiologists. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the efficiency of the two scoring schemes in detecting PCa and csPCa, and with Z test to investigate whether there was any difference in detection efficiency between the two schemes. Results Nine hundred and seventy eight patients were eventually enrolled in the study. The results of the consistency assessment showed that there was good agreement between the two radiologists, whether using Mp-MRI or Bp-MRI, with the weighted Kappa coefficient of 0.800 and 0.812, respectively. The ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of PCa detected by Mp-MRI and Bp-MRI was 0.873 and 0.879, respectively, and the AUC of csPCa detected was 0.922 and 0.932, respectively. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between the AUC of PCa and csPCa detected by the two schemes (P>0.05). Conclusion The Bp-MRI scoring scheme has good stability in the evaluation of benign and malignant prostate, and its detection efficiency of PCa or csPCa is not lower than that of standard Mp-MRI based on PI-RADS v2. Key words: Prostate neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate imaging reporting and data system; Comparative study
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
