Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy
Rozas, George de Queiroz; Saad, Lucas Scatigno; Melo, Homero José de Farias e; Gabrielle, Henrique Armando Azevedo; Szejnfeld, Jacob.
Affiliation
  • Rozas, George de Queiroz; Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Departamento de Diagnóstico por Imagem. São Paulo. BR
  • Saad, Lucas Scatigno; Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Departamento de Diagnóstico por Imagem. São Paulo. BR
  • Melo, Homero José de Farias e; Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo. São Paulo. BR
  • Gabrielle, Henrique Armando Azevedo; CURA Imagem e Diagnóstico. São Paulo. BR
  • Szejnfeld, Jacob; Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Departamento de Diagnóstico por Imagem. São Paulo. BR
Int. braz. j. urol ; 45(3): 486-494, May-June 2019. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1012318
Responsible library: BR1.1
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT

Objectives:

To identify the group of patients who could safely avoid prostate biopsy based on the findings of multiparametric prostate resonance imaging (MRmp), parameterized with PI-RADS v2, using prostate biopsy as reference test and to assess the sensitivity and specificity of mpMR in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer using prostate biopsy as a reference test. Patients and

Methods:

Three hundred and forty two patients with suspected prostate cancer were evaluated with mpMR and prostate biopsy. Agreement between imaging findings and histopathological findings was assessed using the Kappa index. The accuracy of mpMR in relation to biopsy was assessed by calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

Results:

A total of 342 biopsies were performed. In 201 (61.4%), mpMR had a negative result for cancer, which was confirmed on biopsy in 182 (53%) of the cases, 17 (4.9%) presented non-clinically significant cancer and only 2 (0.5%) clinically significant cancer. 131 (38.3%) patients had a positive biopsy. Clinically significant cancer corresponded to 83 (34.2%), of which 81 (97.5%) had a positive result in mpMR. Considering only the clinically significant cancers the mpMR had a sensitivity of 97.6%, specificity of 76.8%, PPV 57.4% and VPN of 99%.

Conclusions:

mpMR is a useful tool to safely identify which patients at risk for prostate cancer need to undergo biopsy and has high sensitivity and specificity in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer.
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: LILACS Main subject: Prostate / Prostatic Neoplasms / Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Image-Guided Biopsy Type of study: Diagnostic study / Etiology study / Observational study / Prognostic study / Risk factors Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged, 80 and over / Female / Humans / Male Language: English Journal: Int. braz. j. urol Journal subject: Urology Year: 2019 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: CURA Imagem e Diagnóstico/BR / Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo/BR / Universidade Federal de São Paulo/BR

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: LILACS Main subject: Prostate / Prostatic Neoplasms / Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Image-Guided Biopsy Type of study: Diagnostic study / Etiology study / Observational study / Prognostic study / Risk factors Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged, 80 and over / Female / Humans / Male Language: English Journal: Int. braz. j. urol Journal subject: Urology Year: 2019 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: CURA Imagem e Diagnóstico/BR / Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo/BR / Universidade Federal de São Paulo/BR
...