TY  - JOUR
T1  - Biparametric Prostate MRI Shows Similar Diagnostic Accuracy Rates for Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric MRI
TT  - Biparametrik Prostat MRG, Multiparametrik MRG ile Prostat Kanseri Tespiti İçin Benzer Tanısal Doğruluk Oranları Gösterir
AU  - Görmez, Ayşegül
AU  - Topcuoğlu, Osman Melih
AU  - Yencilek, Faruk
PY  - 2022
DA  - September
DO  - 10.31832/smj.1021146
JF  - Sakarya Medical Journal
PB  - Sakarya University
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2146-409X
SP  - 503
EP  - 509
VL  - 12
IS  - 3
LA  - en
AB  - Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of bp-MRI with standard mp-MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.Material and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the bp-MRIs in comparison with mp-MRIs at 3 Tesla. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), for bp- and mp-MRIs were calculated and compared.Results: A total of 202 patients with a mean age of 62.4±11.8 years (range from 31 to 86 years) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.  In patients with PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions; the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV for bp-MRI versus mp-MRI were 95.4%, 77.2%, 53.8%, 98.3% and 97.7% vs 73.4%, 50.5%, 99.1%, respectively.Conclusion: Overall diagnostic accuracy was similar for the bp-MRI and the mp-MRI for PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions.
KW  - Biparametric prostate MRI
KW  - PI-RADS.
KW  - multiparametric prostate MRI
N2  - Amaç: Prostat kanseri tanısında bp-MRG'nin tanısal doğruluğunu standart mp-MRI ile karşılaştırmak.Gereç ve Yöntemler: 3 Tesla MRG cihazında elde edilen bp-MRG bulguları mp-MRG bulguları ile karşılaştırmalı olarak retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Bp- ve mp-MRG'ler için duyarlılık, özgüllük, pozitif ve negatif prediktif değerler (PPV ve NPV) hesaplandı ve karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular:  Ortalama yaşı 62.4±11.8 yıl (31-86 yıl aralığında) olan toplam 202 hasta dahil edilme kriterlerini karşıladı. PI-RADS 4 ve 5 lezyonlu hastalarda; bp-MRG ve mP-MRG için duyarlılık, özgüllük, PPV, NPV sırasıyla %95.4, %77.2, %53.8, %98.3 ve %97.7, %73.4, %50.5, %99.1 idi.Sonuç: PI-RADS 4 ve 5 lezyonları için tanısal doğruluk oranları bp-MRI ve mp-MRI için benzer bulundu.
CR  - Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
CR  - Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA, et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 2016;26:1606-1612.
CR  - Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, 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;76:340-351.
CR  - Thestrup KC, Logager V, Baslev I, et al. Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Acta Radiol Open 2016;5:2058460116663046.
CR  - Boesen L, Norgaard N, Logager V, et al. Multiparametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing repeat biopsy: a prospective comparison with clinical findings and histopathology. Acta Radiol 2018;59:371-380.
CR  - Di Campli E, Delli Pizzi A, Seccia B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: Comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol 2018;101:17-23.
CR  - Niu XK, Chen XH, Chen ZF, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.  Am J Roentgenol 2018:1-10.
CR  - Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Kramer N, et al. Abbreviated Biparametric Prostate MR Imaging in Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen. Radiology 2017;285:493-505.
CR  - Scialpi M, D'Andrea A, Martorana E, et al. Biparametric MRI of the prostate. Turk J Urol 2017;43:401-409.
CR  - Scialpi M, Prosperi E, D'Andrea A, et al. Biparametric versus Multiparametric MRI with Non-endorectal Coil at 3T in the Detection and Localization of Prostate Cancer. Anticancer Res 2017;37:1263-1271.
CR  - Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S, et al. Combined Biparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-specific Antigen in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Validation Study in a Biopsy-naive Patient Population. Urology 2016;88:125-134.
CR  - Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, et al. Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU Int 2015;115:381-388.
CR  - Cicchetti DV. Multiple comparison methods: establishing guidelines for their valid application in neuropsychological research. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1994;16:155-161.
CR  - Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int 2011;107:1411-1418.
CR  - Xu L., Zhang G., Shi B, et al. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Imaging 2019;19:90.
CR  - Choi MH, Kim CK, Lee YJ et al. Prebiopsy biparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS version 2. Am J Roentgenol 2019,;212:839-846.
CR  - Tamada T., Kido A, Yamamoto A, et al. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS version 2.1. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020; 53:283-291.
CR  - Hansford BG, Peng Y, Jiang Y, et al. Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Curve-type Analysis: Is It Helpful in the Differentiation of Prostate Cancer from Healthy Peripheral Zone? Radiology 2015;275:448-457.
CR  - Barth BK, De Visschere PJL, Cornelius A, et al. Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Short Dual-Pulse Sequence versus Standard Multiparametric MR Imaging-A Multireader Study. Radiology 2017;284:725-736.
CR  - Scialpi M, Rondoni V, Aisa MC, et al. Is contrast enhancement needed for diagnostic prostate MRI? Transl Androl Urol 2017;6:499-509.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.1021146
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2071668
ER  -