THE ROLE OF PI-RADS V2.1 ON MRI IN DIAGNOSIS OF PROSTATE CANCER

Thị Hà Ngân Vương , Quang Hiền Trần , Anh Thành Lê, Thị Tố Quyên Nguyễn, Chí Tuệ Nguyễn, Hoàng Phương Hồ , Quang Huy Huỳnh

Main Article Content

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer is the second most commonly occurring cancer in men and the fifth most common cancer overall. The introduction of the Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS 2.1) in March 2019 has significantly improved the uniformity of interpreting imaging findings, leading to enhanced precision in diagnosis. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging based on the PI-RADSv2.1 guideline in identifying prostate cancer. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with PI-RADS v2.1 scores. Methods: A retrospective study included 84 patients who presented with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (based on clinical presentation or elevated PSA levels). Prostate MRI evaluations were performed using the PI-RADS 2.1 criteria, followed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. The study period was conducted from January 2022 to December 2023. Results: A total of 84 patients with a mean age of 70 years and a median PSA level of 24,4 ng/ml were included in the study. The detection rates of prostate cancer for lesions classified as PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 12.9%, 27.2%, 77.3%, and 96.3%. Furthermore, the overall Gleason score is positively correlated with an elevated PI-RADS v2.1 score. Conclusions: The utilization of MRI prostate with the PI-RADS 2.1 demonstrates significance in accurately detecting prostate cancer.

Article Details

References

1. Wang L, Lu B, He M, Wang Y, Wang Z, Du L. Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality: Global Status and Temporal Trends in 89 Countries From 2000 to 2019. Frontiers in public health. 2022;10:811044. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.811044
2. Wu RC, Lebastchi AH, Hadaschik BA, et al. Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer. World journal of urology. Mar 2021;39(3):637-649. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03530-3
3. Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). May 2013;17(20):vii-xix, 1-281. doi:10.3310/hta17200
4. Talab SS, Preston MA, Elmi A, Tabatabaei SJRCoNA. Prostate cancer imaging: what the urologist wants to know. 2012;50(6):1015-1041.
5. Purysko AS, Baroni RH, Giganti F, et al. PI-RADS Version 2.1: A Critical Review, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems. AJR American journal of roentgenology. Jan 2021;216(1):20-32. doi:10.2214/ajr.20.24495
6. Ukimura O, Coleman JA, De La Taille A, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. 2013;63(2):214-230.
7. Siddiqui MR, Li EV, Kumar S, et al. Optimizing detection of clinically significant prostate cancer through nomograms incorporating mri, clinical features, and advanced serum biomarkers in biopsy naïve men. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases. Sep 2023;26(3):588-595. doi:10.1038/s41391-023-00660-8