DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF MRI PI-RADS TO DIAGNOSE PROSTATE CANCER, KEEPING HISTOPATHOLOGY AS GOLD STANDARD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37762/jgmds.13-1.787Keywords:
Prostate Cancer,, PI-RADS,, Multiparametric MRI,, Diagnostic Accuracy,, Gleason Score,, Prostate BiopsyAbstract
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI using PI-RADS v2 in a prospective study, with histopathology as the reference standard.
METHODOLOGY
This prospective single-centre diagnostic accuracy study was conducted between January 2022 and June 2023 in the Department of Radiology, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan, in accordance with STARD guidelines. A total of 127 men (aged 40-85 years) with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA >4 ng/dL) and abnormal digital rectal examination findings were enrolled by a consecutive sampling method. The study was conducted at the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, over a period of 6 months. All participants underwent mpMRI with PI-RADS scoring followed by systematic prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as a Gleason score ≥7. Diagnostic accuracy metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy, were calculated.
RESULTS
Prostate cancer was histopathologically confirmed in 58.3% (74/127) of patients. Using a predefined diagnostic threshold of PI-RADS ≥4 versus <4, mpMRI demonstrated a sensitivity of 89.2%, specificity of 81.1%, PPV of 86.8%, NPV of 84.3%, and overall accuracy of 85.8%. Performance was superior in patients with PSA >10 ng/dL (92.5% sensitivity) and for PI-RADS 5 lesions (94.7% concordance with high-grade cancer). False negatives were predominantly anterior zone tumors (75%), while false positives were primarily due to prostatitis. Inter-reader agreement was substantial (κ = 0.72).
CONCLUSION
In this study, mpMRI using PI-RADS v2 showed good diagnostic performance and reproducibility for detecting csPCa in a Pakistani cohort. Limitations persist in anterior zone assessment, and inflammatory mimics were observed, underscoring the need for careful interpretation and optimized biopsy strategies.
Downloads
Metrics
References
REFERENCES
Bergengren O, Pekala KR, Matsoukas K, Fainberg J, Mungovan SF, Bratt O, et al. 2022 update on prostate cancer epidemiology and risk factors—A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2023 Aug;84(2):191–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.05.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021
Akhtar S, Hassan F, Ahmad S, El-Affendi MA, Khan MI. The prevalence of prostate cancer in Pakistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2023 Oct;9(10):e20350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20350 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20350
Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017 Mar;71(3):353–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004. PMID: 27542364 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. PMID: 30824206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. PMID: 28110982 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767–77. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. PMID: 29552975 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, Barrett T, Bittencourt L, Borofsky S, et al. Interreader variability of PI-RADS version 2 in detecting and assessing prostate cancer lesions at MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Jun;212(6):1197–205. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20536. PMID: 30888917 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20536
Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, Rosenkrantz AB, Margolis DJ, Turkbey B, et al. PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology. 2019 Aug;292(2):464–74. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182946. PMID: 31318335 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182946
Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, Summers RM, Marko J, Law YM, et al. Accuracy and agreement of PI-RADS v2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Feb;45(2):579–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25372. PMID: 27547857 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25372
Kaissis G, Ziegelmayer S, Lohöfer F, Algül H, Eiber M, Weichert W, et al. A machine learning model for the prediction of survival and tumor subtype in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from preoperative diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur Radiol Exp. 2019 Dec;3(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-019-0119-0. PMID: 31749092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-019-0119-0
Bangash M, Khan SS, Naimat M, Alvi SA, Afzal SK, Laique T. Frequency of significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7) in suspected patients having PI-RADS score ≥4: descriptive study. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2021;15(10):2625. https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs2115102625 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs2115102625
Almola R, Eltohamy M, Tantawy H, Desoky E, Tharwat E. Accuracy of T2, DW-MRI and total PI-RADS v2 in discriminating a clinically significant prostatic nodule. Zagazig Univ Med J. 2022;0(0):0–0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/zumj.2022.150122.2600
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052. PMID: 26427566 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
Cool DW, Zhang X, Romagnoli C, Izawa JI, Romano WM, Fenster A. Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jan;204(1):83–91. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12681. PMID: 25539289 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12681
Chatterjee A, Bourne RM, Wang S, Devaraj A, Gallan AJ, Antic T, et al. Diagnosis of prostate cancer with noninvasive estimation of prostate tissue composition using hybrid multidimensional MR imaging: a feasibility study. Radiology. 2018 Jun;287(3):863–73. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171130. PMID: 29478306 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171130
Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, et al. Comparing three different techniques for MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore vs MRI–TRUS fusion vs cognitive registration. Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):517–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.023. PMID: 27593531 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041
Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917–28. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910038. PMID: 32130814 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of TRUS-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric MRI with subsequent MRI-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated PSA: a large prospective multicenter study. Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):570–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023. PMID: 30545785 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
Huang C, Cai ZQ, Qiu F, Pu JX, Xi QL, Wei XD, et al. New model of PI-RADS and adjusted PSA density of peripheral zone improves the detection rate of initial prostate biopsy: a diagnostic study. Asian J Androl. 2022 Jan;25(1):126–34. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja202183. PMID: 35120623 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/aja202218
Wang YH, Liang C, Zhu FP, Zhou TR, Li J, Wang ZJ, et al. Improving the understanding of PI-RADS in practice: characteristics of PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions with negative biopsy. Asian J Androl. 2023 Mar;25(2):217–23. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja202185. PMID: 36944140 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/aja2022112
Deng R, Liu Y, Wang K, Ruan M, Li D, Wu J, et al. Comparison of MRI artificial intelligence-guided cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy versus routine cognitive fusion-targeted prostate biopsy: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2024 Dec;22(1):530. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03567-8. PMID: 39741139 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03742-z
Ippoliti S, Fletcher P, Orecchia L, Miano R, Kastner C, Barrett T. Optimal biopsy approach for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 2021;95(1131):20210413. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210413. PMID: 35103556 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210413
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Muneeb Ur Rahman, Ghazala Wahid, Hafiza Ayesha Jawaid, Mehreen Khan, Mahnoor Rehman Khan, Gohar ali; Adnan Sajid
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
